It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And what ultimate sacrifice might that be? Someone you refer to as his son?
Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
It has always seemed to me that the reason God, who is omnipotent, did not destroy Satan and those angels who followed him is because then it would have appeared just as Marg claims it does appear - that God has tantrums and that God rules by fear. And, rather than destroying mankind and starting over when Adam and Eve dropped the ball, He gave the ultimate sacrifice to pay for our sins. Their is no illogic in this whatsoever.
I think you are confused as to the topic of the thread. If you take issue with the thread placement, then just move it out of Eden.
Lunacy doesn't exist merely because you choose not to understand. Lunacy is wasting time on something that means nothing to you if you prefer to deny it. I also wonder about other aspects of lunacy, for example, isn't this a spirituality topic, rather than a conspiracy topic? Seems a bit loony to not get the threads in the right forums!
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I am afraid that is not a good enough response. It is an easy way out of logically responding to the question, as prefaced by ‘because.’
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Again, this is not an answer, it in fact is an evasion of a direct question, which I supported with the supposed feeling of regret as felt by God.?
Noah was a righteous man. Why blast a guy who has got it right?
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Placing the tree of life and telling them not to eat of it is no test when one considers that they were subsequently removed from the garden lest they find that tree. If it was, it surely was a silly test, one that suggests that after failing on the tree of knowledge, his omniscience is indeed in question, and his omnipotence more so in that he did not destroy the serpent. But stay tuned, I have more to say on the creation story in a thread of mine, probably tomorrow.
A test. We take them every day, all part of the experiment. Free will, what will man do?
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
He loves us so much, he regretted making us, and slaughters all but 4, including the animals who did him no harm with his love. That is quite the paradox. Small wonder humans do not invoke deity exemption for doing the same.
He loves mankind.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
If you do not see where his all knowing comes from, then I say look.
God is a micro-manager? I don't see where this is coming from. I always saw him as a macro-manager. He moves the big stuff and lets us move the little stuff.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
This is one of those apologies, where a Christian just the other day in some other post denigrated this reptile, and where a month or two ago, another cursed all Muslems to be belly crawlers. Your answer goes directly to my statement that Christians cannot agree amongst themselves. However, if it is not inherently evil, he surely did adjust the female attitude toward same. There is that freewill issue once more. But as I said above, stay tuned for my creation post.
The snake is one of God's creatures. It is not inherently evil. Satan turned himself into one in disguise, so that woman would recognize it as a native inhabitant of the garden. Snakes strike quickly so they're seen as dangerous but they are also used as medical purposes even in ancient times. It's like saying tigers are evil, spiders, mosquitos, etc...
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I have a question and a statement in response: If the God you revere is not omnipotent, then why do you revere him and speak as though he is? Refer my position previously stated.
Omnipotent means 'all powerful' so I'm not sure how these questions relate.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Now let me make it perfectly clear Saint4, you last engaged me by hounding me for a response on Jesus’ resurrection despite my having provided links on my position relative to your question. When I finally relented and detailed the information you requested, you abandoned the thread without response. I read that only one way: faced with that which you could not logically counter, your defence was avoidance. Therefore, consider the questions you pose above as the last I will respond to.
Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not sure what the case was for non-response until I do..
I understand. Your point of view is obviously that unless others agree with you, there is no progress and no attempt to understand you. Obviously then you will always abandon threads when faced with the inevitable post you cannot rebut, particularly when you demand that rebuttal.
I will say however, when no progress is being made and no attempt is being made to understand me, there is little point to bickering...