How exactly was Jesus' crucifixion a sacrifice?

originally posted by: Foderalover
It wasn't, its a sadly made up story, maybe some of them thought that since they thought other crazy things that weren't true but I wouldn't waste too much time on an idea that doesn't make sense to anyone.

It makes perfect sense to me, sorry, and I like to think that I qualify as "anyone". Just because you failed to understand it does not mean that others are unable to do it.

originally posted by: Leahn
Thank you on elaborating on your position, you've really nailed me to the T on this one....

Good. One less for the count.

I can't tell if you seriously thought I was admitting defeat when I stated that, when the quote I responded to consisted of yes and no responses without any clarification from you on how I was incorrect.

originally posted by: Leahn
Prove it. And by 'prove it' I do not mean link to an Wikipedia article about a theory full of holes, suppositions, assumptions and unknown variables.

Firstly, I haven't ever given you a link from Wikipedia, I've consistent directly you to either articles or news sources that made the official claims, or I've posted the actual peer-reviewed scientific article for you to read.

Secondly, I already DID post the proof of it, proof that you didn't respond to because you were instead so adamant about slandering me personally.

originally posted by: Leahn
Yes. Did you bother to study history as I told you? No? Then that's why you still fail to see how that is irrelevant. To put it in mathematical terms, the life expectancy of the early 20th century was 31 years old.

Your responses blow my mind with how ignorant they are. Why does it mater that the life expectancy was younger, when life threatening birth defects from Incest born Children can kill within days, weeks, or the first year? It doesn't matter if the life expectancy is 1,000,000. If Incest causes a massively increased chance in Life Threatening Birth Defects, then it's impossible to diverge to what we have to day from two individuals, and then incestual reproduction, because the colony would die off from birth defects before they reached maturity.

originally posted by: Leahn
....
Hence, irrelevant. Most people are simply not aware that life expectancy greatly arose only after World War II, and has been steadily increasing since. They assume that it has always been like this. It wasn't. If you add to that the low expectancy of a child to reach 5 years old, impact from child birth defects is effectively null.

Have you gone insane? The information you've posted actually proves my point!

originally posted by: Leahn
Yes, they are.

Then prove it. You make claim after claim without any evidence at all.

There are no assumptions in Science. Scientific processes require evidence in order to even begin a hypothesis on a phenomenon.

We know the half-life of Uranium, and Carbon, and other nuclides from experimentation. Experimentation, mind you, that you can do yourself and confirm. We can tell how much carbon was in a particular area in a particular time from various other bits of information (Ice core data, is a good place to start your research).

And we can cross reference various other forms of NON-Radiometric dating mechanisms to further verify our accuracy.

Now, You say that it makes assumptions, how about you actually prove your words, rather than just state your biased, close-minded position on the topic?

originally posted by: Leahn
They are based off on assumptions cherry picked to suit whatever finding they want.

This doesn't show me that radiometric dating is based off of assumptions.... I asked you where you came to that conclusion, and you just state the same thing like your a crappy record player on repeat.

Show me PROOF that radiometric dating is based off of assumptions. I don't want your record player to repeat, I already know your drawn out, unsubstantiated position. Now do what good debaters do, and proof it.

originally posted by: Leahn
Straight to genetic argument. Way to go!

I don't know what this means.

originally posted by: Leahn
Yes, that's why website sorted the results by sample (leftmost column). Way to go with the genetic argument. Let's not address the data, at all. Why bother with truth when you can use fallacies to dismiss it, isn't it?

What genetic argument? I can easily dismiss your sources because your sources have no value to them. Why not post a peer reviewed scientific article on the subject? There is no author to your source, just a random (extremely poorly formed) website. How do I know that the individual who posted that image has any credentials at all? Does he/she even know what he/she is reading?

originally posted by: Leahn
AGAIN, radiometric dating use assumptions cherry picked to suit whatever finding they want. It is very easy to find support for whatever you want when you make twenty different measures, find three that support your point, discard all the others and claim that multiple measures support your conclusion. You only have to ignore all the others that don't.

Again, prove how radiometric dating uses assumptions. Like seriously? Do you honestly think you can have an argument over facts with your opinion alone, without any reputable sources of information at all? You're acting like a pre-school child.

originally posted by: Leahn
Sure. Can you show me any post where you actually used the scripture? Because I found none.

King James version.

originally posted by: Leahn
*ahem* you're wrong again *ahem*

My mistake, I was wrong.

Let's see you do that trick (admitting when you're wrong).

originally posted by: Leahn
Your point is?

Evidence backing my original statement. That is the point of evidence, after all. Perhaps you should try posting some some day?

originally posted by: Leahn
Sure, I have. Failing to acknowledge people's answer does not make them go away.

I can't acknowledge evidence that isn't there. You only parrot your position without substantiating any of it with reputable sources.

originally posted by: Leahn
I agree that you haven't done any of those things, namely, you have not questioned any illogical claim of mine

You don't have any logical claims to question.

originally posted by: Leahn
you have not corrected any claim of mine using the same source material

You don't post sourced material, and the single one you did wasn't for a reputable source.

originally posted by: Leahn
and you have not seen anyone besides I claiming to know more than you about the Bible. I am glad we could reach an agreement on this subject.

Yet another school-girl tactic? I was correcting what you originally meant to say, not agreeing with you. I never claimed that anyone else here was claiming to know more about the bible, so why even mention it?

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

originally posted by: Leahn
Acknowledgment is not "your argument does not make any sense to me so you are wrong, your religion is illogical and only indoctrination could make you believe it."

Yes, actually that is acknowledgment.... Do you not speak English at all?

originally posted by: Leahn
Acknowledgment is trying to understand someone's argument, and failing that, expose your doubts, discuss them, solve them, and after you understand their argument, finding fault on it, expose those.

Acknowledgement: the action of showing that one has noticed someone or something. Again, please learn more about the language you're writing in before attempting a debate.

originally posted by: Leahn
Finding fault is not "it does not make sense to me."

Correct. Finding fault is explaining to you how your position is illogical. Which is what I've been doing.

originally posted by: Leahn
As I said multiple times already, you are the one asking the question, you are the one that does not understand the subject, so be humble. This is not Christianity 101. This is a topic about which much was written during nearly two thousands of years, and is still being written and discussed about nowadays. And we are very painstakingly trying to explain it to you, and we are being met with derision and scorn instead of the necessary humility that one should expect from the person who is actually asking the question.

The topic is more of a statement, and an issue, than a question. According to the English language, Jesus' actions do not dictate a Sacrifice. There's no Biblical interpretation needed, because the claim is that "Jesus made the greatest sacrifice to die for our sins"

Except, he didn't really 'die', he was rewarded with his actions, he knew he was going to be rewarded, the time he spent being tortured amounts to nothing in the scope of eternity.

You have yet to actually dismiss those issues.

originally posted by: Leahn
"It does not make sense to me" is not acknowledging an answer and responding to it.

Yes actually, that is acknowledging an answer. However, I don't say "it doesn't make sense to me", you just claim that I'm thinking that. Can you provide me with each topic we've discussed with each other where my only words were "It doesn't make sense to me"?

It's as if you're not even reading the responses.

originally posted by: Leahn
That's your opinion. Why is that so to you? Justify it.

Must we go through the entire dictionary for you to comprehend this debate?

No, that is not my opinion, that is the literal definition of the word 'Sacrifice'. I, and many others, have explained that to you over and over again.

For someone to consistently wine and complain about acknowledgment, you certainly aren't even aware of any of the responses directed to you. Or is it simply a matter that you can't come up with any rebuttal to the opposition, so you're forced to ignore them entirely?

originally posted by: Leahn
Why not?

I have already explained this to you, what, 4 or 5 times now? Here it goes again

Sacrifice (according to the English language): an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy.

Jesus never gave up anything valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important. He was rewarded as being the king of heaven, he knew he would receive this reward, he lived eternally before and after his time on earth, he lost nothing.

Please, explain how that is a sacrifice?

originally posted by: Leahn
You can go on and on for as long as you want, as long as by the end of it you give the citation of the Bible where it says that Christians should not judge. Which you somehow failed to give and tried to change the subject instead. If you cannot provide it, recant.

It's in the post you conveniently decided to not read. I'm not sure how you missed it. It's the only red text on this page, and the specific part about judging is bold and in white.

Here it is, yet again...

Ja 4:11
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaks evil of his brother, and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law, and judges the law: but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge.

originally posted by: Leahn
Knowledge.

I believe you meant to type "Narcissistic Arrogance"

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Apparently not. Your words. We have no free-will. It's not our actions. It's gods and gods alone. So why do you continue to address me personally?? If you believe my actions are not my own? Why??

Could it be that you don't believe what you're saying?

This is what notions of an omnipotent god infers. It can't be any other way really. The moment anything does something of it's own volition, or that isn't directly willed from god, he stops being omnipotent. Then we just have empty "could be omnipotent if I wanted to" claims that anyone could make. Talking the talk without walking the walk.

We either have no free will at all, or if we do, there is no omnipotent god. It is interesting listening to believers try to argue this away and watch how god becomes a logical absurdity.

ps. The notion of free will is a fascinating one even without god. It's obvious our free will is extremely limited in a physical sense by the forces of nature (physics, biology etc). For example, did we choose of our own free will to be born? Can we choose not to ever get hungry, sick, old, taller, shorter and so on? At best we might have some free will though in a very limited way.

Psychologically we might not have the free will we believe we have either. We might be destined to have feelings, reactions, thoughts, make choices as a direct result of the forces of nature including billions of years of evolution. If we had enough information, would we be able to accurately predict everything that ever happens?

It's a fascinating topic and we have no choice other than to employ common sense and make the best decisions we can, but really it seems more a question of to what limited extent we might have genuine free will, if we do (in the ultimate sense).

As to the topic, I agree it doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice. If you are a god/man and know you are going to live forever in heaven anyway. Many people would willingly hasten their own demise under those circumstances (sadly many do choose martyrdom to this day). A bit like the movie "Ground Hog day", Steve Martin would have done it to break the boredom lol.

If he was to take the place of humanity in hell for eternity (as some sort of trade) that would be an impressive sacrifice.

The again, if you were a god with infinite intelligence and wanted to show love, pretending/having an alter ego pretend to die in some dramatic way and then blaming everyone else for it (was his own cock up to begin with) wouldn't seem high up on the list of ways to do that, surely? God mightn't have really put much effort into this one.

Though really the whole thing seems to be a retake on the rather primitive notion of sacrifice to appease the gods, common throughout much of the ancient world, like throwing people into a volcano so that the crops will grow.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well stated, Cogito, Ergo Sum. I couldn't agree with you more on all accounts

originally posted by: Ghost147
I can't tell if you seriously thought I was admitting defeat when I stated that, when the quote I responded to consisted of yes and no responses without any clarification from you on how I was incorrect.

I was meeting irony with irony.

Yes, he knew what he was going to do. No, he didn't know exactly how it would unfold. No, he didn't knew exactly where he would be after his body was killed.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Firstly, I haven't ever given you a link from Wikipedia, I've consistent directly you to either articles or news sources that made the official claims, or I've posted the actual peer-reviewed scientific article for you to read.

Secondly, I already DID post the proof of it, proof that you didn't respond to because you were instead so adamant about slandering me personally.

Not about this subject, no.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Your responses blow my mind with how ignorant they are. Why does it mater that the life expectancy was younger, when life threatening birth defects from Incest born Children can kill within days, weeks, or the first year? It doesn't matter if the life expectancy is 1,000,000. If Incest causes a massively increased chance in Life Threatening Birth Defects, then it's impossible to diverge to what we have to day from two individuals, and then incestual reproduction, because the colony would die off from birth defects before they reached maturity.

So, did you simply ignore everything I wrote without reading? Well, at least you can no longer complain whenever I call your argument irrelevant. Let me give you a primer. During most of mankind's history, up to 40% of the children would die within their first year of birth, and that's when the conditions were 'good'. If there was a plague, a war, a famine or any similar event, the mortality could very well reach 100%. Do you understand it now? Those conditions only changed after World War II.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Have you gone insane? The information you've posted actually proves my point!

No, it doesn't. It shows that your point is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Then prove it. You make claim after claim without any evidence at all.

I already did. You dismissed the evidence using a fallacious genetic argument.

originally posted by: Ghost147
We know the half-life of Uranium, and Carbon, and other nuclides from experimentation. Experimentation, mind you, that you can do yourself and confirm. We can tell how much carbon was in a particular area in a particular time from various other bits of information (Ice core data, is a good place to start your research).

No, you cannot tell how much carbon was in a particular area. Or how much of anything was, really. Contamination happens.

originally posted by: Ghost147
And we can cross reference various other forms of NON-Radiometric dating mechanisms to further verify our accuracy.

They all rely on radiometric dating.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Now, You say that it makes assumptions, how about you actually prove your words, rather than just state your biased, close-minded position on the topic?

I already did. You dismissed the evidence using a fallacious genetic argument.

originally posted by: Ghost147
This doesn't show me that radiometric dating is based off of assumptions.... I asked you where you came to that conclusion, and you just state the same thing like your a crappy record player on repeat.

I am a big fan of forcing the person to read what I write.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Show me PROOF that radiometric dating is based off of assumptions. I don't want your record player to repeat, I already know your drawn out, unsubstantiated position. Now do what good debaters do, and proof it.

I already did. You dismissed the evidence using a fallacious genetic argument.
Go back and read it the first time I posted. After all, you don't want my record player to repeat itself, so why would I post it again?

originally posted by: Ghost147
I don't know what this means.

Which shows just how little of actual logic you know.

originally posted by: Ghost147
What genetic argument? I can easily dismiss your sources because your sources have no value to them. Why not post a peer reviewed scientific article on the subject? There is no author to your source, just a random (extremely poorly formed) website. How do I know that the individual who posted that image has any credentials at all? Does he/she even know what he/she is reading?

The sources are cited by the end of the page. I don't need to cite the sources, because the article itself is very well sourced, pointing to official publications, and peer-reviewed research, if there is any. You are asking for something that was already given to you, but that you dismissed without reading using a fallacious genetic argument.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Again, prove how radiometric dating uses assumptions. Like seriously? Do you honestly think you can have an argument over facts with your opinion alone, without any reputable sources of information at all? You're acting like a pre-school child.

I already did. You dismissed the evidence using a fallacious genetic argument.

originally posted by: Ghost147
King James version.

So, there is none. Ok, I already knew that. I was just checking.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

"Though really the whole thing seems to be a retake on the rather primitive notion of sacrifice to appease the gods, common throughout much of the ancient world, like throwing people into a volcano so that the crops will grow." Quote Cogito, Ergo Sum



Indeed, it is a variation on a theme. These threads only go to illustrate how the seminal notion of an Almighty, Omnipotence (that's power), Omniscience (Supreme Intelligence)...could in all it's Supreme qualities sabotage its own creation (future generations included), at the outset allowing the circumstances for the (so-called) original sin to snow-ball into the need for a saviour that must mop up the results of the carcrash in the first chapter of the script...nay, for the rest of, as yet uncreated, 3d vessels until the last chapter of the script, written by an individual, obviously suffering from early onset dementia, in which the value of that Almightiness is challenged...and these ridiculous threads keep rolling on about the script minutae, namely, whether character 3 really made a sacrifice, or not...seriously???

Grow a brain

Å99

originally posted by: Ghost147
Evidence backing my original statement. That is the point of evidence, after all. Perhaps you should try posting some some day?

Statement that was shown to be incorrect.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I can't acknowledge evidence that isn't there. You only parrot your position without substantiating any of it with reputable sources.

I didn't say evidence. I said answer.

originally posted by: Ghost147
You don't have any logical claims to question.

You have already demonstrated to not to know much logic. I think you'd better stop now. When someone tells you "You are making a genetic argument" and you answer with "I don't know what that means" then your best bet is to back off from any discussion on the subject of logic very slowly.

originally posted by: Ghost147
You don't post sourced material, and the single one you did wasn't for a reputable source.

Good. Then we agree that you have not corrected any claim of mine using the same source material.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Yet another school-girl tactic? I was correcting what you originally meant to say, not agreeing with you. I never claimed that anyone else here was claiming to know more about the bible, so why even mention it?

Because you asked me to elaborate.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Yes, actually that is acknowledgment.... Do you not speak English at all?

No, it is not. Acknowledge is "to recognize the fact, importance or quality of" something.
Saying "It makes no sense to me so it is wrong" is not doing it because it fails even on the 'recognize' part.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Acknowledgement: the action of showing that one has noticed someone or something. Again, please learn more about the language you're writing in before attempting a debate.

Not what the dictionary says.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Correct. Finding fault is explaining to you how your position is illogical. Which is what I've been doing.

You have already confessed to know nothing of logic. You better drop the pretense.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Yes actually, that is acknowledging an answer. However, I don't say "it doesn't make sense to me", you just claim that I'm thinking that. Can you provide me with each topic we've discussed with each other where my only words were "It doesn't make sense to me"?

Ok, I stand corrected. It wasn't you who did it.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I have already explained this to you, what, 4 or 5 times now? Here it goes again

Sacrifice (according to the English language): an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy.

Jesus never gave up anything valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important. He was rewarded as being the king of heaven, he knew he would receive this reward, he lived eternally before and after his time on earth, he lost nothing.

Explain why do you believe that he never gave up anything valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important? As far as I am concerned, nowhere in the definition you posted there is a caveat saying that one cannot be rewarded for their sacrifice. So you must elaborate on your position regarding why do you believe that he being rewarded is relevant. The word "reward" appears nowhere on the definition you posted.

originally posted by: Ghost147
It's in the post you conveniently decided to not read. I'm not sure how you missed it. It's the only red text on this page, and the specific part about judging is bold and in white.

You are not my brother. That passage pertains to Christians dealing with Christians and slander. It does not apply to you.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I believe you meant to type "Narcissistic Arrogance"

No, it was knowledge. I checked twice.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
This is what notions of an omnipotent god infers. It can't be any other way really. The moment anything does something of it's own volition, or that isn't directly willed from god, he stops being omnipotent. Then we just have empty "could be omnipotent if I wanted to" claims that anyone could make. Talking the talk without walking the walk.

We either have no free will at all, or if we do, there is no omnipotent god. It is interesting listening to believers try to argue this away and watch how god becomes a logical absurdity.

That, or your notions of omnipotency are wrong.

originally posted by: Leahn
I was meeting irony with irony.


I am a big fan of forcing the person to read what I write.

Which shows just how little of actual logic you know.

I already did. You dismissed the evidence using a fallacious genetic argument.

So, there is none. Ok, I already knew that. I was just checking.

It seems like someone has not much to offer, except troll...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
It seems like someone has not much to offer, except troll...

What happened? Did you run out of bad arguments?

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

If he was to take the place of humanity in hell for eternity (as some sort of trade) that would be an impressive sacrifice.

I don't think you realize how unimaginably painful of a death being nailed to a cross is... check this out:

Medical examination of the sacrifice

You guys are aware that in some parts of earth people are still doing this as part of rituals???

travel.cnn.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

And sure, it is bad way to go, but probably not the worst... search my previous post (hint: freeeddddooommm )

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
ps. The notion of free will is a fascinating one even without god. It's obvious our free will is extremely limited in a physical sense by the forces of nature (physics, biology etc). For example, did we choose of our own free will to be born? Can we choose not to ever get hungry, sick, old, taller, shorter and so on? At best we might have some free will though in a very limited way.

Psychologically we might not have the free will we believe we have either. We might be destined to have feelings, reactions, thoughts, make choices as a direct result of the forces of nature including billions of years of evolution. If we had enough information, would we be able to accurately predict everything that ever happens?

It's a fascinating topic and we have no choice other than to employ common sense and make the best decisions we can, but really it seems more a question of to what limited extent we might have genuine free will, if we do (in the ultimate sense).

Limitations are part of the challenge.

a reply to: Leahn

and

a reply to: Leahn


Alright, I'm done posting the same information again. Here's a point form answer to your response. You clearly have no interest in actually debating, and I've already giving you all the information you've ever wanted. So....

In response to
~ I see
~ Yes he did, otherwise he isn't omniscient
~ Yes, I did. You even responded to the peer reviewed article
~ I obviously didn't ignore what you wrote, because I responded directly to it, your logic just makes no sense, as I have explained over and over again
~ Yes, it does, You're just too arrogant to see when you're wrong
~ You have only ever linked to one external source as proof for your argument. That source is known to be fraudulent, does not reference peer reviewed material, and doesn't state who came to the poorly explained conclusions and what level of education they posses. That is not a valid source of information.
~ Yes we can, and I've already told you were to look and that contamination is taken into account when using radiometric dating. No one ever claimed that radiometric dating gets a 100% accurate reading. That includes scientists. It is based off of a high percent accuracy, but nothing in science claims to be 100% absolutely accurate.
~ no, they don't rely on radiometric dating. If you actually knew anything about the subject you'd know there are more ways to determine age other than radiometric dating.
~ Giving a source of information to 1 out of the 100 claims you've made does don't mean you've giving a source for all your information. Again, your sources are known to be fraudulent. It's not some sort of unsubstantiated claim to say that, when it is actually fraudulent and has no reputability behind it's claims.
~ It doesn't matter how many times you say something. What matters is what valid information you have to substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do every single time you write a word.
~ So instead of explaining something to the opposition you just say "hah, you don't know what that means". Do you ever want to get out of pre-school and have a debate like an adult? By the way, you're use of 'logic' in that sentence makes no sense.
~ The cited references in your sourced material says where they got the graph, not who came to the conclusion or an peer reviewed article about how that conclusion was formed. That's not validating evidence, that's just showing where they got the graph from.
~Now you're dismissing the bible?

You may as well stop responding to my posts. I've already giving you my evidence, with peer reviewed sources that you don't even respond to without requiring to just slander my position instead, without providing any context at all the the topic at hand. You also don't give any valid evidence of your own, nor do you know how to identify what valid evidence is. You also maintain this pompous attitude in an adult debate like your a little pre-school child who has no idea what they are talking about.

I've already given you all the information your claims ever needed to show that they are incorrect, and information that backs up my claim. You refuse to even acknowledge that information's existence.

The only thing I can assume now is that you're merely a troll, since you've never done anything but make ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims both on your position and my own.

Any further responses from you will be in this format, as there simply is no reason for me to copy and paste what I have already written/given, because you can't get over some kind of hurdle of intelligence to recognize the information being presented.

originally posted by: cooperton
I don't think you realize how unimaginably painful of a death being nailed to a cross is... check this out:

Yes, actually I can imagine, as I have been impaled before (both in the feet and in the arm). You cannot possibly say, with the utmost of honesty, that you cannot think of any other way that a person can experience more pain than a simply nail through the forearm and feet.

In that time there were 100's of ways that they used, actively, to torture and kill people. Crucifixion was one of the least horrible of the lot.

a reply to: Leahn

The same of the Bible. Anything that goes against the laws of God. (1 John 3:4)

well, here we have this thing called "the constitution". its pretty nifty.

Hell, as understood by the majority of people, does not exist.

if you are going to BS me, at least try to make it convincing. anything less is wasting my time and yours.

Let me make an human analogy. Suppose you start your own company. You struggle, you pay your bills on time, you advertise, you put in the extra hours, you lose nights of sleep, you lose weekends with your friends, with your family, you avoid purchasing anything that is not absolutely necessary for you to save money, missing the opportunity to have the best games, the best cell phones, the best cars. In the end, after all was said and done, you find yourself in a good situation financially, and you can relax and enjoy your life a little more. Was none of it a sacrifice because you were rewarded by it in the end?

nope. as i said before, he did the job and got paid a ridiculous wage for a pointless exercise in human suffering. in terms of business strategy and product management, god was (is?) a total idiot....or a cunning psychopath pretending to be a total idiot.

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well stated, Cogito, Ergo Sum. I couldn't agree with you more on all accounts

You realize this poster is in support of this (MY) supposition: "There is no such thing existing as free will" bestowed upon the human to act upon independently of God's will. To do so would imply a God actually exists (doing its will) or as one in open defiance of.