Is God cruel?

I appreciate the thought.

0 Replies

Jason,

My point is that we all share ignorance, and we all patch up the holes in our realities with whatever is at hand.

To say that you know and another doesn't in these matters is sometimes exposing your own ignorance.

For a person of little faith and imagination myths, legends, prophecies and mystical issues do not connect to anything. They are fantasy, forever banished from reality.

For a person who has faith and imagination these things connect to reality. He may not presume to understand them, but he doesn't automatically label them as fantasy and unreal.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

. . . Can you provide at least one proof of God not being unjust to Adam and Eve in the story?

God warned them of the consequences of their actions. The bible, contrary to your profession, asserts that Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of realizing the importance of their choice.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Neo, educate yourself by reading some books, man. Philosophy existed before the Bible was even written--and while the Bible was being writtenand after the Bible was written therefore, there were many, many, many people who questioned the existence of Godand today you will find lots of philosophers who are influenced by Greek philosophy as well.

I am well read in the writings of Plato, Greek philosophers and playwrights as well as the erudition of other Western and Eastern writers. I have a huge library of history texts (which I have read) including the entire 10 volumes of Durant's History of Civilization. I would match my graduate educational level and IQ against yours any day, my presumptuous friend.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But the whole argument revolves around the logical justification of God's every action and intention to those poor, innocent individuals (Adam and Eve.)

Prove their innocence.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Don't you understand what I have been explaining to you, neo? If you have understood and agreed with what I have been spoon feeding you for quite some time, neo, then my "rhetorical insufficiency" is not insufficient at all...if you understand the logic factor here.

What you have been attempting to spoon feed is what I have been explaining to you as spurious.

Look. I can understand why a person can reject organized religion. I can understand why one might reject the Bible as a whole, especially since it demands subjection. And I can understand the relentless need for some to expose Bible 'inconsistencies'. But when the Bible says what it says, it says so for a reason.

And there was a reason for the tree in the Garden of Eden. It represented Adam and Eve's freedom of moral choice.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Jason,

My point is that we all share ignorance, and we all patch up the holes in our realities with whatever is at hand.

Cyracuz, you make the mistake that so many A2k Christians make when they want to justify their own delusions and place them as facts: you violate the rule of definition.

You need to replace the word "ignorance" with some other word, Cyracus, because it doesn't belong in that sentence. Do you know why? Since I ALWAYS have an open mind when it comes to judging the evidence presented to me (and I'm very fair in doing so) "ignorance" doesn't fit in such categoryaccording to the rule of definition.

Cyracuz wrote:

To say that you know and another doesn't in these matters is sometimes exposing your own ignorance.

The word "ignorance" is "the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed."

By writing this, are you now showing your own ignorance, Cyracuz?

Cyracuz wrote:

For a person of little faith and imagination myths, legends, prophecies and mystical issues do not connect to anything. They are fantasy, forever banished from reality.

You are wrong. I have so much imagination when it comes to myths.

Can't you see the double standard? If you can't see it, I will help you out. You regard those other cultural myths as mythsand when it comes to the Bible, you categorize those myths as realistic histoical events. And you haven't even been exposed to what I have been exposed for you to come to such pathetic conclusion.

Cyracuz wrote:

For a person who has faith and imagination these things connect to reality.

And you can see where the problem actually lies

Cyracuz wrote:

He may not presume to understand them, but he doesn't automatically label them as fantasy and unreal.

People who are brained washed by Christianity (and other religions) will not consider the stories of their "book of myths" as fairy tales; they usually neglect to pay attention to tons and tons of physical and logical evidence that contradict their so call "evidence of faith." People like that should be placed into a mental institution for further evaluation.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

God warned them of the consequences of their actions. The bible, contrary to your profession, asserts that Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of realizing the importance of their choice.

Does that fall into the definition of "just"? Is it just to you? And what about not knowing right and wrong, good from evil? How can you neglect to see the most important element here, the core of the story? see your contradiction?

neologist wrote:

I am well read in the writings of Plato, Greek philosophers and playwrights as well as the erudition of other Western and Eastern writers. I have a huge library of history texts (which I have read) including the entire 10 volumes of Durant's History of Civilization.

For someone who suffers from distorting the language and ignoring clear, coherent evidence, you don't seem like the intellectual kind.

neologist wrote:

I would match my graduate educational level and IQ against yours any day, my presumptuous friend.

Sadly to say, my delusional friend, you are matching your IQ against mine.

neologist wrote:

What you have been attempting to spoon feed is what I have been explaining to you as spurious.

And your problem is the difficulty of processing simple ideas.

neologist wrote:

Look. I can understand why a person can reject organized religion. I can understand why one might reject the Bible as a whole, especially since it demands subjection. And I can understand the relentless need for some to expose Bible 'inconsistencies'.

Ohhh, you do understand
I tell you whatI will demonstrate how insane you're actually are, neo: the brainwash caused by so much exposure to the Bible has blinded you from judging its content accordingly.

neologist wrote:

But when the Bible says what it says, it says so for a reason.

Great come back, neothere is no argument that can stand against this.
(See? I've proven your insanity.)

neologist wrote:

And there was a reason for the tree in the Garden of Eden. It represented Adam and Eve's freedom of moral choice.

And you need to take a break soon, ok?

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

daaaaang.... someone didn't take their happy pill this morning...

I did. I'm just having a little fun with these guys.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

. . . Does that fall into the definition of "just"? Is it just to you? And what about not knowing right and wrong, good from evil? How can you neglect to see the most important element here, the core of the story? see your contradiction?

The core of the story as far as right and wrong is this: Until Adam and Eve chose to have the knowledge of good and bad, God made their moral decisions for them. This he had the right to do as their creator. By eating of the fruit, they rejected God's sovereignty over them and accepted Satan's. If it is justice in your mind to ignore this deliberate sin, say so. If you disagree with the punishment and have a better alternative, explain it.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

. . . For someone who suffers from distorting the language and ignoring clear, coherent evidence, you don't seem like the intellectual kind.

Waiting for clear, coherent evidence.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

. . . Sadly to say, my delusional friend, you are matching your IQ against mine.

Waiting for clear, coherent evidence.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

And your problem is the difficulty of processing simple ideas.

Waiting. . .

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

. . . the brainwash caused by so much exposure to the Bible has blinded you from judging its content accordingly. . .

I spend more time in the gym than I do studying the Bible. Actually, I know I should apply myself more.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

And you need to take a break soon, ok?

You're right; but this is so much fun. . .

0 Replies

Jason

You make the mistake of assuming that I a christian. I'm born and bred in a christian nation, but I have long since shed that religion along with all others.

And I disagree. Ignorance was the right word. To say that there is no ignorance in ourselves is presumptuous by any standards, and I'd rather not face the humiliation of experiencing that I am wrong.

So I do not truly know anything about what the world really is. Do you?
No matter how persuasive your points may be, can you not admit that if you follow whatever logic trail you wish towards a complete description of everything, it will unravel in incoherency long before the goal is reached?

You can argue that science has produced the unified field theory, and quantum mechanics to map the subtlest levels of existence, but many of these theories face the same problems that myths do. They cannot be proved.

To me it is a giveaway that all approaches; scientific, logical, philosophic or religious, are ladders that end halfway up the wall. Any one of them alone is inadequate to explain everything coherently.

But what if we use all those approaches?

And there is no double standard. I'd be happy to argue the truth of Tolkiens Silmarillion with you, or the reign of the greek gods. Presently I am into Freuds psychology, and the truth of that is a hefty argument.

Having said that, could it be possible that it is you that categorizes those myths as reality. That objecting to them is your way of confirming their reality, wich you protest?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
. . . Does that fall into the definition of "just"? Is it just to you? And what about not knowing right and wrong, good from evil? How can you neglect to see the most important element here, the core of the story? see your contradiction?

The core of the story as far as right and wrong is this: Until Adam and Eve chose to have the knowledge of good and bad, God made their moral decisions for them. This he had the right to do as their creator. By eating of the fruit, they rejected God's sovereignty over them and accepted Satan's.

The core of the story is that Adam and Eve BROKE a rule, neoand that rule lead to a punishment that constitutes (in human standards) as injustice based on human definition.
There is no other explanation other than the barrage of nonsense you have presented to such argument so far. And besides, where is the fairness in God making Adam's and Eve's moral decision for them? Are you so sick in the head that you can't even see the different between fairness and unfairness?

neologist wrote:

If it is justice in your mind to ignore this deliberate sin, say so.

It is not injustice in my mindit is injustice in the mind of ALL people who have a clear judgment and rationally thinking of the nonsensical story.

It is not "if" I disagree with the punishment, neoI DISAGREE with the punishment.

neologist wrote:

If you disagree with the punishment and have a better alternative, explain it.

What about avoiding the punishment entirely and explaining to those innocent individuals what is right and what is wrong? Don't you think this is simpler and the righter to do it?

neologist wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
. . . For someone who suffers from distorting the language and ignoring clear, coherent evidence, you don't seem like the intellectual kind.
Waiting for clear, coherent evidence.

This is the most pathetic display of intellectual bravado that I've ever seen from someone who allegedly knows about literary material. If you are telling me that physical and logical evidence found in the pseudo-history of the Bible doesn't amount to evidence, you're are the one who represents himself as being the ignorant herenot me. If you argue that my argument has no foundation whatsoever, you are the ignorant here for ignoring what I have presented to you without any consideration

I am using human definitions to describe actions and events in the general scale. I don't know from what planet you're getting your own definitions, neo. I KNOW for certain that you're not using earthling definitions.

neologist wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
. . . Sadly to say, my delusional friend, you are matching your IQ against mine.

Waiting for clear, coherent evidence.

See above

neologist wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
And your problem is the difficulty of processing simple ideas.
Waiting. . .

"WAITING FOR PROCESS IN BRAIN ACTIVITY"?

neologist wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
. . . the brainwash caused by so much exposure to the Bible has blinded you from judging its content accordingly. . .

I spend more time in the gym than I do studying the Bible.

Your mental illness was probably caused by something else then.

neologist wrote:

Actually, I know I should apply myself more.

Besides going to the gym?

neologist wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
And you need to take a break soon, ok?

You're right; but this is so much fun. . .

Some people find amusement when they don't have a clue in what they're talking about.

I suggest that you stop with your nonsense and open your eyes and stop embarrassing yourself, neo. But then again, what can I expect from someone who has no shame?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Jason

You make the mistake of assuming that I a christian. I'm born and bred in a christian nation, but I have long since shed that religion along with all others.

Cyracuz, you have a very serious problem and that is to understand simple English. Since this is an online forum, and the only way to exchange ideas is by typing "nonsenseless thoughts," you will have to make improvement in your English comprehension skill. Why do I think it is a problem? I think that it is a problem because superfluous sentences like the one above only slow things down and also the direction of the argument diverges

This is what I wrote, Cyracuz:

Quote:

Cyracuz, you make the mistake that so many A2k Christians make when they want to justify their own delusions and place them as facts: you violate the rule of definition.

If you were able to read the above quotation, I've never assumed that you were a ChristianI simply said that you do the same thing that many A2k Christians do in this forum. Understand? Now, let's move on.

Cyracuz wrote:

And I disagree. Ignorance was the right word.

"Ignorance" is the wrong word. I'll tell you why.

Cyracuz wrote:

To say that there is no ignorance in ourselves is presumptuous by any standards, and I'd rather not face the humiliation of experiencing that I am wrong.

You see where your argument starts losing steam, Cyracuz. I've never said that we aren't ignorant of the information that we yet have to know of this worldbut aren't we talking about the Bible hereI am talking about the accurate information that has been studied through the ages that seems to reveal the nonexistence of Godhow can you say that I am an ignorant if the word that you're using doesn't apply to my description? I know what I am talking aboutand have lot of evidence to back it up.

Cyracuz wrote:

So I do not truly know anything about what the world really is.

I knowain't it noticeable?

Cyracuz wrote:

Do you?

Nope

Cyracuz wrote:

No matter how persuasive your points may be, can you not admit that if you follow whatever logic trail you wish towards a complete description of everything, it will unravel in incoherency long before the goal is reached?

How is that? Doesn't the world function with logic and evidence? Don't we need evidence to provide proof of anything? Don't we need logic to prove evidence? You seem to not know what the hell you're talking about.

Cyracuz wrote:

You can argue that science has produced the unified field theory, and quantum mechanics to map the subtlest levels of existence, but many of these theories face the same problems that myths do.

All these theories that have been created by man in the past are "languages" in order to understand what is being "discovered." These theories are based upon logical knowledge of the logical information already present.

Cyracuz wrote:

They cannot be proved.

Because you cannot understand them doesn't mean they can't be proven.

Cyracuz wrote:

To me it is a giveaway that all approaches; scientific, logical, philosophic or religious, are ladders that end halfway up the wall. Any one of them alone is inadequate to explain everything coherently.

I don't think that you have ever read properly any science book, philosophy book, or any religious book that would make you come to a rational conclusion of what is being discussed here. So I don't think that you're knowledgeable enough to argue religion, much less anything coherent.

Cyracuz wrote:

But what if we use all those approaches?

What the hell are you talking about?

Cyracuz wrote:

And there is no double standard. I'd be happy to argue the truth of Tolkiens Silmarillion with you, or the reign of the greek gods. Presently I am into Freuds psychology, and the truth of that is a hefty argument.

You are welcome any timemay the force be with you with that one.

Cyracuz wrote:

Having said that, could it be possible that it is you that categorizes those myths as reality. That objecting to them is your way of confirming their reality, wich you protest?

I have no idea what you meant herecan you just translate all this gibberish into something that I would understand?

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

. . . It is not "if" I disagree with the punishment, neoI DISAGREE with the punishment.

point taken.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

What about avoiding the punishment entirely and explaining to those innocent individuals what is right and what is wrong? Don't you think this is simpler and the righter to do it?

And you suppose nothing of this sort ever took place before the eating of the fruit? Do you think a lighter punishment was in order? Slap on the wrist? Go to bed without supper? Or, none at all?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

neologist wrote:
Waiting for clear, coherent evidence.
This is the most pathetic display of intellectual bravado that I've ever seen from someone who allegedly knows about literary material. If you are telling me that physical and logical evidence found in the pseudo-history of the Bible doesn't amount to evidence, you're are the one who represents himself as being the ignorant herenot me. If you argue that my argument has no foundation whatsoever, you are the ignorant here for ignoring what I have presented to you without any consideration

I am using human definitions to describe actions and events in the general scale. I don't know from what planet you're getting your own definitions, neo. I KNOW for certain that you're not using earthling definitions.

I'm gonna have to stick with that, Jason.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Some people find amusement when they don't have a clue in what they're talking about.

I suggest that you stop with your nonsense and open your eyes and stop embarrassing yourself, neo. But then again, what can I expect from someone who has no shame?

There really isn't any way I can answer this, Jason, except to let the erudition in your posts stand for all to see.

0 Replies

:wink:

0 Replies

jason wrote:

Can't you see the double standard? If you can't see it, I will help you out. You regard those other cultural myths as mythsand when it comes to the Bible, you categorize those myths as realistic histoical events.

And this is where you make the mistake of thinking I am a christian.

Otherwise, your post shows me that you misunderstood just about everything I said.

Your name fits you, proudmoore, but you sould be wary of more hot air lest you take flight...

Also, if you think that the scientific theories you mentioned can be proven, you are wrong. Ask any scientist you chose, and he'll tell you. It's all mathematical theory with no empirical confirmation.

So if I were you I'd not be so quick to assume I understand.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

hephzibah wrote:
daaaaang.... someone didn't take their happy pill this morning...

I did. I'm just having a little fun with these guys.

As I was with you... hehehe

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
daaaaang.... someone didn't take their happy pill this morning...

I did. I'm just having a little fun with these guys.

As I was with you... hehehe

Cyracuz wrote:

. . . Your name fits you, proudmoore, but you sould be wary of more hot air lest you take flight...

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/laughing1.gif

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

There really isn't any way I can answer this, Jason, except to let the erudition in your posts stand for all to see.

Exactly

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

jason wrote:
Can't you see the double standard? If you can't see it, I will help you out. You regard those other cultural myths as mythsand when it comes to the Bible, you categorize those myths as realistic historical events.

And this is where you make the mistake of thinking I am a christian.

Cyracuz, why don't you get that cerebral enema out of your brain and start thinking like a rational human being? I know that you are capable of noticing your logical fallacies

For the sake of this argument, I will emphasize this little absurd trigger contest of nonsense you have dragged yourself into.

AGAIN. this is what you previously said:

Quote:

Jason; All I have been trying to do is relate the Bible's viewpoint. Last time I looked, Plato and the Greek philosophers were not considered Bible scholars. I would welcome a comparison between Greek philosophy and the Bible if that is what you want.

And this is what I said concerning the above paragraph:

Quote:

Cyracuz, you make the mistake that so many A2k Christians make when they want to justify their own delusions and place them as facts: you violate the rule of definition.

Why do I think that you think like Christians (mind you that I said "think like Christians," not assuming that you're one.)? You see that a great number of Christians affirm that the Bible is the ONLY physical thing that makes sense in the world without analyzing any more evidence that would contradict such assertion. What do you know about Greek philosophy by the way? What do you know about Plato? How can you relate the argument between religion and philosophy with the pile of human excrement you just exuded above?

Cyracuz wrote:

Otherwise, your post shows me that you misunderstood just about everything I said.

In the above paragraph, where am I assuming that you're a Christian? Do you know the difference between "to think like a Christian" versus "being a Christian"? If you can't see the difference, you have serious comprehension problemlike I said before.

Cyracuz wrote:

Your name fits you, proudmoore, but you sould be wary of more hot air lest you take flight...

A delusional person is someone who sees things that aren't actually there. Think about thatprobably you will have trouble comprehending this.

Cyracuz wrote:

Also, if you think that the scientific theories you mentioned can be proven, you are wrong.

This is not just a Straw man in disguise; it's a mega harlequin, my boy!!

Cyracuz wrote:

Ask any scientist you chose, and he'll tell you.

I actually took physics classes from Otto Sultanhe's a very renowned physics professor who taught at MIT and is currently teaching at NYIT on 60th and Broadway. He can explain things like you wouldn't know.

Cyracuz wrote:

It's all mathematical theory with no empirical confirmation.

Cyracuz wrote:

So if I were you I'd not be so quick to assume I understand.

I'd advise you to go back to school and learn your English definitions so we can continue with this argument.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
daaaaang.... someone didn't take their happy pill this morning...

I did. I'm just having a little fun with these guys.

As I was with you... hehehe

I am more than delighted to know that I, and my two stooges, have served you as amusement, my dear. This is why the three of us are here at A2k, to provide people like you with quality entertainment. Twisted Evil

:wink:

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

. . . I'd advise you to go back to school and learn your English definitions so we can continue with this argument.

Speaking of definitions. This is the unsubstantiated definition you gave for God here:
"God can be defined: God is the (essential nature) , the unique inifinite (sic) personal spirit holy, rightious (sic), wise, and loving, who has created the existing universe, and who is preparing souls for eternal fellowship with himself through their own free response to the error on mental challenges and opporunities (sic) which he appoints."

Though were challenged at the time, you never addressed the questions. Until you, Ala Ambrose Bierce, can write The Proud More Dictionary, you should stand ready to define and defend.

0 Replies

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y75/Intrepid2/laugh.gif

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know