Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

reply to post by Irish M1ck


what?!!!!

Actually George Washington would say something like he did at his Farewell Address

27 Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

!!!!

Originally posted by noobfun

They have proved more durable than the antisemitic Book of Jasher, a UK forgery first published in 1750 and again in 1829.

www.caslon.com.au...

Who thinks the Book of Jasher is Biblical?
Where are you getting this stuff?

even looking at the new testsament Mark the first written of the gospels is written around AD 70 .. thats about 30-40 years after he would have probabily died average life of just 30-35 years in those days

Maybe he lived to a ripe old age?!!!

Benjamin Franklin was 81 when he signed the constitution.

Matthew copies Mark almost entierly revised better written with a few more interesting stories added to glam it up

Nobody 'glammed it up'!

Luke even says he wasnt even a disciple and learnt it second or third hand but is still accredited to the disciple Luke, and he copies bits of Matthew

but then the same author wrote Acts, so 2 books written by someone with nothing more then hersay knowledge

Luke the Evangelist

If we accept that Luke was in fact the author of the Gospel bearing his name and also the Acts of the Apostles, certain details of his personal life can be reasonably assumed. While he does exclude himself from those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, he repeatedly uses the word "we" in describing the Pauline missions in Acts of the Apostles, indicating that he was personally there at those times.[9] There is similar evidence that Luke resided in Troas, the province which included the ruins of ancient Troy, in that he writes in Acts in the third person about Paul and his travels until they get to Troas, where he switches to the first person plural. The "we" section of Acts continues until the group leaves Philippi, when his writing goes back to the third person. This change happens again when the group returns to Philippi. There are three "we sections" in Acts, all following this rule. Luke never stated, however, that he lived in Troas, and this is the only evidence that he did.
The composition of the writings, as well as the range of vocabulary used, indicate that the author was an educated man. The quote in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians differentiating between Luke and other colleagues "of the circumcision" has caused many to speculate that this indicates Luke was a Gentile. If this were true, it would make Luke the only writer of the New Testament who can clearly be identified as not being Jewish. However, that is not the only possibility. The phrase could just as easily be used to differentiate between those Christians who strictly observed the rituals of Judaism and those who did not.[9]

John has 2 authors and was written around 110AD so that would make at least one of the disciple John's around 110 years old thats almost quadrupal the average age

I haven't studied that, but I bet the mistake is NOT the authors.

and the writting style is so different between John and revelation that the chances the same person wrote both is 0 (even though John already has 2 authors)

You KNOW there are MORE than one Johns, don't you?

"Letters of Pontius Pilate: Written During His Governorship of Judea to His Friend Seneca in Rome." - is a fictional novel that gets held up as proof Pilate became a christain

Pontius Pilate SUPPOSEDLY got saved? lol

‘There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation.’
– St. Jerome (Epistle. lii, 8; p. 93.)

I think that's out of context, too.
I haven't studied Jerome, didn't he help form the latin vulgate?

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)

even Paul admits he is lying for god

That is WAY out of context.
Paul was saying that he would STILL be found guilty of lying, even if it WAS for God!
The entire passage;

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.


Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)


Rom 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?


Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?



Rom 3:8 And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
– Martin Luther

(Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

I can't find anything on this quote, except that it may not be authentic;
Snopes

But you must notice that when Arthur placed this citation on her webpage, she failed to note a page number from either Bok's book, or that of Max Lenz. She also fails to name Luther's secretary or what letter the quote was supposedly contained in. Finally, the quote expresses utilitarian ethics, which did not yet exist in Luther's day. From what I've learned, this philosophy was created in the early 19th century with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

science fixes its faults to leave only that which is true

Oh! Would be to God that it were true!
Some science books STILL have Haekel's embryos and the horse chart, etc,....

thats why the only ones talking about piltdown man and nebraska man etc are creationists and you, we dont talk about them becasue they are fake and wrong and dont in anyway have anything to do with current scientific knowledge, we dont hold them up as evidence we ignore them like the rubbish they are

What about Sahelanthropus tchadensis?
Is it an ordinary ape or a human ancestor?
They are some of the FOUNDATIONS of evolutionary science.
It's how they started getting their funding a century ago!
They didn't exactly advertise it to the average person that it's not true anymore.



[edit on 1-1-2009 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies


Let's examine a little deeper than that:

Thomas Jefferson on Religion

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Founding Fathers on Religion

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

Also, as for Washington, many argue that if anything, he was a diest, but certainly not a Christian.

It is most clear that the Founding Fathers were deeply committed to secularism and would be deeply offended by the large role religion plays in politics today.

[edit on 1/1/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Clearskies

Who thinks the Book of Jasher is Biblical?
Where are you getting this stuff?

if you read your bible corectly you would there are several references to the book of jasher in the bible

fake's were written and published to prove the bible was real and accurate and that current church dogma is the way it was meant to be

en.wikipedia.org...(Biblical_references)

Maybe he lived to a ripe old age?!!!

Benjamin Franklin was 81 when he signed the constitution.

and only 1900 years of medicine and food technology to get him there,

and its not 1 ripe old age, mark 70 - 80, matthew 70 - 90, luke was written around 90CE, john at least the first author 110 if he was the disciple john as its put about

Nobody 'glammed it up'!

so he didnt copy 600 verses? didnt then add resident evil jerusalem? refine the stories found in mark?

he glammed it up

and Luke is often heralded as luke the direct disciple of jesus by many churches which he isnt, so anyone saying the bible are first hand accounts of jesus life found in the gospels is mistaken

I haven't studied that, but I bet the mistake is NOT the authors.

which one? they show very distinct writting differances, where as the original text of john does as most of the bible differentiate between sects of judaism the second author groups ALL jews together, jesus is no longer one of them, the text dates later then the original and is a politcal exercise to further seperate early christianity from judaism

You KNOW there are MORE than one Johns, don't you?

and you also know that they are attributed to the same author in almost every sect of christainity especially evanglism

Pontius Pilate SUPPOSEDLY got saved?

lol

its proof of jesus's divinity its stil waved around today as proof despite the fact its a fictional novel and they havnt even bothered to read it

I think that's out of context, too.
I haven't studied Jerome, didn't he help form the latin vulgate?

not really it was a comment on Gregory of Nazianzus how he like many many others just made stuff up and passed it on, he personally advocated

seek to call forth not plaudits but groans. Let the tears of your hearers be your glory

he liked to bore people to tears

That is WAY out of context.
Paul was saying that he would STILL be found guilty of lying, even if it WAS for God!

no he doesnt

he says all men are liars, and if the unrighteous proclaim god in thier favour of thought it refelcts badly on god(ted haggard anyone? ) but if what i say which is still may be a lie brings glory to god wheres the harm in that if it doesnt promote bad things

I can't find anything on this quote, except that it may not be authentic;

or they didnt do thier research very well

Exchange of letters land count Phillips of the Grossmüthigen of Hessen with Bucer, VOL. I

it was a discorese of letters between Phillips of the Grossmüthigen and Bucer where Bucer referes to a letter he had recieved from one of luthers secrataries (he kept at least 2 at any given time). As Bucer was a friedn of Luthers he has no perticular reason to present false claims

Oh! Would be to God that it were true!
Some science books STILL have Haekel's embryos and the horse chart, etc,....

thats not science thats out dated school text books, and it was sceince that called for the removal of the embryo pictures ^_^

What about Sahelanthropus tchadensis?
Is it an ordinary ape or a human ancestor?
They are some of the FOUNDATIONS of evolutionary science.
It's how they started getting their funding a century ago!
They didn't exactly advertise it to the average person that it's not true anymore.

foundations? discovered in 2001?

Contributed by David Pilbeam, November 5, 2005
The recent reconstruction of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis cranium
(TM 266-01-60-1) provides an opportunity to examine in
detail differences in cranial shape between this earliest-known
hominid, African apes, and other hominid taxa. Here we compare
the reconstruction of TM 266-01-60-1 with crania of African apes,
humans, and several Pliocene hominids. The results not only
confirm that TM 266-01-60-1 is a hominid but also reveal a unique
mosaic of characters. The TM 266-01-60-1 reconstruction shares
many primitive features with chimpanzees but overall is most
similar to Australopithecus, particularly in the basicranium. However,
TM 266-01-60-1 is distinctive in having the combination of a
short subnasal region associated with a vertical upper face that
projects substantially in front of the neurocranium. Further research
is needed to determine the evolutionary relationships
between Sahelanthropus and the known Miocene and Pliocene
hominid

www.pnas.org...

your surce is wrong sorry

Edited by Thure E. Cerling, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved January 22, 2008 (received for review August 24, 2007)

the age of Sahelanthropus tchadensis to lie between 6.8 and 7.2 Ma. This chronological constraint is an important cornerstone both for establishing the earliest stages of hominid evolution and for new calibrations of the molecular clock.

www.pnas.org...

still an early homonid in 2007

www.pnas.org... infact help your self there 7 peer reviewed published scienitific studies with Sahelanthropus tchadensis either included or the main subject all classing it for what it is an early homonid

infact in 2006 she released a paper on Sahelanthropus tchadensis stating it was nything but just a gorilla skull

[edit on 1/1/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Terapin

 

Screw the imagery and the Pope's "blessing". I don't care whether the church agrees or not. Evolution is clearly the best theory to date, and whether "religion" agrees or not is the least of my worries.

For the longest time I bowed to religion for the sake of politeness. I am done with that. Religion ruins good societies, and it is time that we take a stand against the deep rooted evil that is "religion" in America.

The Founding Fathers would roll in their graves at these loony bastards.

Mick why is it you seem so much like the type of person the bible describes in the last days. Let me see now, so far you are for the NWO, socialism, Obamanoids, evolution, etc. You sound like someone right out of Stalin's inner circle with an agenda just as dangerous more dangerous than any religion has ever been a part of.

Get a clue kid, you aren't as smart as you think you are and

it shows more than you know






[edit on 1-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by noobfun
if you read your bible corectly you would there are several references to the book of jasher in the bible

fake's were written and published to prove the bible was real and accurate and that current church dogma is the way it was meant to be

I didn't say that wasn't the case,.................. however most people I know don't consider The book of Jasher Biblical.
If it IS fake, it doesn't matter to the Bible proper.

Maybe he lived to a ripe old age?!!!

Benjamin Franklin was 81 when he signed the constitution.

and only 1900 years of medicine and food technology to get him there,

Wiki, Life expectancy;

Classical Greece[4] 20-30
Classical Rome[5][6] 20-30
Pre-Columbian North America[7] 25-35
Medieval Islamic Caliphate[8] 35+ The average lifespans of the scholarly class were 59–84.3 years in the Middle East[9][10] and 69–75 in Islamic Spain.[11]
Medieval Britain[12][13] 20-30
Early 20th Century[14][15] 30-40

At most a ten year difference when considering age capacity.

and its not 1 ripe old age, mark 70 - 80, matthew 70 - 90, luke was written around 90CE, john at least the first author 110 if he was the disciple john as its put about

Again I give you the Luke excerpt you ignored;

If we accept that Luke was in fact the author of the Gospel bearing his name and also the Acts of the Apostles, certain details of his personal life can be reasonably assumed. While he does exclude himself from those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, he repeatedly uses the word "we" in describing the Pauline missions in Acts of the Apostles, indicating that he was personally there at those times.[9] There is similar evidence that Luke resided in Troas, the province which included the ruins of ancient Troy, in that he writes in Acts in the third person about Paul and his travels until they get to Troas, where he switches to the first person plural. The "we" section of Acts continues until the group leaves Philippi, when his writing goes back to the third person. This change happens again when the group returns to Philippi. There are three "we sections" in Acts, all following this rule. Luke never stated, however, that he lived in Troas, and this is the only evidence that he did.
The composition of the writings, as well as the range of vocabulary used, indicate that the author was an educated man. The quote in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians differentiating between Luke and other colleagues "of the circumcision" has caused many to speculate that this indicates Luke was a Gentile. If this were true, it would make Luke the only writer of the New Testament who can clearly be identified as not being Jewish. However, that is not the only possibility. The phrase could just as easily be used to differentiate between those Christians who strictly observed the rituals of Judaism and those who did not.[9]

John The Apostle

Of the other New Testament writings, it is only from the three Letters of John and the Book of Revelation that anything further is learned about John. Both the Letters and Revelation presuppose that John belonged to the multitude of personal eyewitnesses of the life and work of Jesus (cf. especially 1 John 1:1-5; 4:14), that he had lived for a long time in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions existing in the various messianic communities there, and that he had a position of authority recognized by all messianic communities as leader of this part of the church. Moreover, Revelation says that its author was on the island of Patmos "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus", when he was honoured with the vision contained in Revelation (Revelation 1:9). John, like his Old Testament counterpart Daniel, was kept alive to receive the prophetic vision.............

Some believe, however, that there is support for the idea that John did go to Ephesus and from there wrote the three epistles traditionally attributed to him. John was allegedly banished by the Roman authorities to the Greek island of Patmos, where some believe that he wrote the Book of Revelation. According to Tertullian (in The Prescription of Heretics) John was banished (presumably to Patmos) after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it. It is said that the entire colosseum were converted to Christianity upon witnessing this miracle.

so he didnt copy 600 verses? didnt then add resident evil jerusalem? refine the stories found in mark?

No. He didn't 'add' anything.

and Luke is often heralded as luke the direct disciple of jesus by many churches

which he isnt,

Luke The Evangelist
was a disciple of PAUL Not Jesus.

so anyone saying the bible are first hand accounts of jesus life found in the gospels is mistaken

You mean like Peter or Thomas?

which one? they show very distinct writting differances, where as the original text of john does as most of the bible differentiate between sects of judaism the second author groups ALL jews together, jesus is no longer one of them, the text dates later then the original and is a politcal exercise to further seperate early christianity from judaism

Jesus was ALWAYS a Hebrew!
He is called their 'Brother'.
What other 'differences'?

Pontius Pilate SUPPOSEDLY got saved?

lol

its proof of jesus's divinity its stil waved around today as proof despite the fact its a fictional novel and they havnt even bothered to read it

I've never even heard of it, much less it being used as proof.

not really it was a comment on Gregory of Nazianzus how he like many many others just made stuff up and passed it on, he personally advocated

seek to call forth not plaudits but groans. Let the tears of your hearers be your glory

he liked to bore people to tears

I still don't know much about it, but you know a credo of the jesuits is that the ends justifies the means, NOT A CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

That is WAY out of context.
Paul was saying that he would STILL be found guilty of lying, even if it WAS for God!

no he doesnt

he says all men are liars, and if the unrighteous proclaim god in thier favour of thought it refelcts badly on god(ted haggard anyone? ) but if what i say which is still may be a lie brings glory to god wheres the harm in that if it doesnt promote bad things

No, Jesus NEVER advocates Lying, you need to read the entire chapter again.

or they didnt do thier research very well

Exchange of letters land count Phillips of the Grossmüthigen of Hessen with Bucer, VOL. I

it was a discorese of letters between Phillips of the Grossmüthigen and Bucer where Bucer referes to a letter he had recieved from one of luthers secrataries (he kept at least 2 at any given time). As Bucer was a friedn of Luthers he has no perticular reason to present false claims

Why is it that I can't find Anything concrete on that?
Give me a link to a transcript or something. Not adobe, though.
It bogs down my computer too much.
That's why I can't read your 'stuff' on sahelanthropus tchadensis.

foundations? discovered in 2001?

I just added Sahelanthropus to that.
I was talking about Haekel, and the horse chart.

Contributed by David Pilbeam, November 5, 2005
The recent reconstruction of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis cranium
(TM 266-01-60-1) provides an opportunity to examine in
detail differences in cranial shape between this earliest-known
hominid, African apes, and other hominid taxa. Here we compare
the reconstruction of TM 266-01-60-1 with crania of African apes,
humans, and several Pliocene hominids. The results not only
confirm that TM 266-01-60-1 is a hominid but also reveal a unique
mosaic of characters. The TM 266-01-60-1 reconstruction shares
many primitive features with chimpanzees but overall is most
similar to Australopithecus, particularly in the basicranium. However,
TM 266-01-60-1 is distinctive in having the combination of a
short subnasal region associated with a vertical upper face that
projects substantially in front of the neurocranium. Further research
is needed to determine the evolutionary relationships
between Sahelanthropus and the known Miocene and Pliocene
hominid

www.pnas.org...

So sahelanthropus 'hominid' is really an APE like the LUCY child homonid?!!!

your surce is wrong sorry

No your source doesn't censor quickly enough to keep out FACTS!



[edit on 1-1-2009 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by spy66
Thanks for letting us know that you know nothing about God or people.

You say.. Sadly God is a tool used for great evil!!!!! Then i ask!! By WHO.

Who is using God as a tool. Would that be Humans!!!!

I guess you will know the truth when you die. Until then have a great ride.

If God is all powerful then all the power in the world is God's as he would have created things the way they are for his purpose.
He created the Devil to be evil.
If he did not create the Devil to be evil, then he would not be omnipotent or omniscient.
But as the myth stands, God created evil.

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I Myself have created the smith who blows the fire of coals And brings out a weapon for its work; And I have created the destroyer to ruin.

He created evil, he did NOT create the Devil to BE evil. He created Lucifer who chose to BE evil and is now Satan

In righteousness shall you be established: you shall be far from oppression; for you shall not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near you.

15 Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whoever shall gather together against you shall fall for your sake.

16 Behold, I have created the smith that blows the coals in the fire, and that brings forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

17 No weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, said the LORD.

waster to destroy-(Isa 10:5-7; 37:26, 27; 45:1-6). Desolating conquerors who use the "instruments" framed by "the smith." The repetition of the "I" implies, however, something in the latter half of the verse contrasted with the former understand it, therefore, thus: "I have in My power both him who frames arms and him who destroys them (arms)" kjv.us...

Why do you think if he didn't create the Devil to be evil then that makes God not all powerful? This makes no sense

Originally posted by Aermacchi
He created evil, he did NOT create the Devil to BE evil. He created Lucifer who chose to BE evil and is now Satan

He must have created Satan to be evil if he is all powerful and all knowing.
No one can pull a fast one on him - so at the time that he created Satan, he knew exactly what he would do (omniscience).
Moreover, he created him that way WHILE knowing what he would become (omnipotence).
He created Satan to be evil.
He HAD other options.
He could have created Satan not to be evil.
He could have not created him at all.
He knew the attributes that he made lucifer with, combined with the circumstances would make him turn (omniscience), and yet he made those attributes and circumstance just the same.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Why do you think if he didn't create the Devil to be evil then that makes God not all powerful? This makes no sense

No, I'm saying that because he is all powerful AND all knowing, he must have created things just the way they are - everything being HIS will.

After this, the whole system crumbles - just think about it.
Why would such a being judge us for how he made us?
Free-will is negated as everything becomes God's will.
All of the laws and tests of the Bible fall by the wayside when examining a being such as this.

reply to post by Aermacchi


As much as you can attack me personally, I suppose it is evident you can't argue with anything I say. Basically what I am saying is, you said a lot, but you didn't say much at all.

Ill post but no stars or flags.

It is my personal and spiritual understanding and profound experience with the highest level of truth, that evolution is a process which we are all part of. I have come from the stars, through the oceans, have felt the reality of the first footsteps from the sea, it is within my DNA and I remember with every connected every cell in the universe.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by Aermacchi
He created evil, he did NOT create the Devil to BE evil. He created Lucifer who chose to BE evil and is now Satan

He must have created Satan to be evil if he is all powerful and all knowing.
No one can pull a fast one on him - so at the time that he created Satan, he knew exactly what he would do (omniscience).
Moreover, he created him that way WHILE knowing what he would become (omnipotence).
He created Satan to be evil.
He HAD other options.
He could have created Satan not to be evil.
He could have not created him at all.
He knew the attributes that he made lucifer with, combined with the circumstances would make him turn (omniscience), and yet he made those attributes and circumstance just the same.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Why do you think if he didn't create the Devil to be evil then that makes God not all powerful? This makes no sense

No, I'm saying that because he is all powerful AND all knowing, he must have created things just the way they are - everything being HIS will.

After this, the whole system crumbles - just think about it.
Why would such a being judge us for how he made us?
Free-will is negated as everything becomes God's will.
All of the laws and tests of the Bible fall by the wayside when examining a being such as this.

I see there is much for you to understand grasshopper.

The inductive arguments for the problem of evil has been one of many a deep thinker. I still can't say I know ALL there is to know about this perplexing subject in regard to God however I have read all the logical fallacies, various arguments and I doubt seriously you could come up with one that I have not studied inside and out. First we must understand that everything God creates has a valuable purpose, even evil. We must understand what evil IS and what it isn't. We must understand that there are different "types" of evil

The God of Abraham exercises much of what he does and what he knows via divine providence. If you do NOT have a full understanding of both divine providence and the nature of God in relation to the problem of evil, it would take me a long long time to explain all of it and luckily for us, these arguments have already been weighed.

Truth, if you sincerely would like to understand the way the lord works, I suggest you read THIS first. There is a greater advantage than you could ever know for understanding God but I'll let your conscience be your guide. Otherwise I would suggest you get a good grasp of this subject just so you can catch up with me and then after you do, we can go from there as it gets pretty complicated as you will see.

Divine Providence

The Problem of Evil

Without knowing these two arguments and how they are refuted and defended using critical thinking and the inductive arguments for logical fallacy, you'll never begin to believe how simplistic your first argument is and with all due respect to clearskies whom I know is sincere and means well, I doubt she has researched this area as deeply as I have. I take this subject very serious and would rather weed out the flakes that are just looking to bash the existence of God saving us both a lot of time. In most cases, an average intelligent person will see the suppositions you offer, answered quite well in the two papers I have offered links to.

I hope you read them and read them well,

Anyone with your IQ should find them a fascinating read even if it does not satisfy your curiosity to know the lord personally, it will answer your arguments whether you agree with God in each of them or not







[edit on 2-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

None of this has anything to do with evolution.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

As much as you can attack me personally, I suppose it is evident you can't argue with anything I say.

If you only suppose, then how is it "evident" and how do you arrive at that oxymoronic position (not a personal attack mind you but a fact as I have already established) with a statment without a point? I.E. "as much as you can attack me"? I don't understand? As much means?

Basically what I am saying is, you said a lot, but you didn't say much at all.

And what YOU said would be what?

The alternative? Pffft

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
None of this has anything to do with evolution.

How do YOU know? Have you read the two pieces at the stanford Library or are you assuming God has nothing to do with evolution?

Please do share with us your thoughts Mick, I'd love to see just how well you hold up in an argument like this

reply to post by Aermacchi


It is quite simple really, your post was an ad hominem. Ad homs can do anything except develop a well-rounded argument.

Also, no, I do not believe scripture has anything to do with evolution, especially scripture and discussion about whether he created the devil and why.

But I understand your point, there isn't too much to argue about. There's evolution, and then well... nothing. Creationism isn't really a science so it is hard to discuss.

reply to post by Aermacchi


Adding more assumptions about God in no way changes the point I was making.
How about I take evil out of the equation?
God judges us for how he made us.
That's backwards to how it should be. If he created a flawed race than he should judge himself for making a flawed race.
Eternal torment in Hell is hardly "righteous judgement" when he knew that the way he made humans, most would ultimately spend eternity in Hell.
Just broaden your scope and think about it.
Judgement of any kind, laws of any kind, tests of any kind, are irrelevant when dealing with such a limitless being - because he already knows the end result from the way he made us and would have created it to be exactly that.

Now about the link you gave me...
It says that God could not know our choices because they are neither true nor false but are made by us.
He uses an example of the sun rising - in which there are causes which enable us to know that the sun will rise - but with our choices there are no such causes because of free-will.
This is, if anything, a lack of understanding of free-will and causality. Our actions ARE caused by multiple things. Variables that we can not see, and some that we can - but they are all involved in our mental process non-the less.
Now, to us this would indeed be unknowable, and the author is right there.
However, to an all knowing God, he would know the variables that affect us all, and moreover would have created them in that exact order. Knowing all the causes means he knows all the reactions, as you can't have a reaction without a cause.
There's no way around it.

But by all means hit me up with a counter-argument.
I've read what others have thought, but what do you think?

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Adding more assumptions about God in no way changes the point I was making.
How about I take evil out of the equation?
God judges us for how he made us.
That's backwards to how it should be. If he created a flawed race than he should judge himself for making a flawed race.
Eternal torment in Hell is hardly "righteous judgement" when he knew that the way he made humans, most would ultimately spend eternity in Hell.
Just broaden your scope and think about it.
Judgement of any kind, laws of any kind, tests of any kind, are irrelevant when dealing with such a limitless being - because he already knows the end result from the way he made us and would have created it to be exactly that.

Now about the link you gave me...
It says that God could not know our choices because they are neither true nor false but are made by us.
He uses an example of the sun rising - in which there are causes which enable us to know that the sun will rise - but with our choices there are no such causes because of free-will.
This is, if anything, a lack of understanding of free-will and causality. Our actions ARE caused by multiple things. Variables that we can not see, and some that we can - but they are all involved in our mental process non-the less.
Now, to us this would indeed be unknowable, and the author is right there.
However, to an all knowing God, he would know the variables that affect us all, and moreover would have created them in that exact order. Knowing all the causes means he knows all the reactions, as you can't have a reaction without a cause.
There's no way around it.

But by all means hit me up with a counter-argument.
I've read what others have thought, but what do you think?

As I said truth, all that is answered exhaustively in the links I provided. If you just want to argue I suppose I could copy paste it over here.

Otherwise your argumentative nature displays only a willingness to argue, not your ability to argue. You are condemning the infromation without investigation. You say you have heard what others have thought, well what makes you think yours are all that original? I have seen everyone of those arguments before and all of them can be answsered at that site.

I am in no mood to reinvent the wheel

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

It is quite simple really, your post was an ad hominem. Ad homs can do anything except develop a well-rounded argument.

Also, no, I do not believe scripture has anything to do with evolution, especially scripture and discussion about whether he created the devil and why.

But I understand your point, there isn't too much to argue about. There's evolution, and then well... nothing. Creationism isn't really a science so it is hard to discuss.

I only asked a question about traits you have that resemble the type of person you most certainly have established here. Was I wrong when I said you are an advocate for socialism? Obama? the NWO? Your bigotry for religion might qualify you for the rest of my comments and I still wouldn't be saying something that wasn't true. You are like many who don't like the reflection they see in the mirror, so they blame the mirror.




[edit on 2-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


With all due respect, but is it not religion that has proved itself to be bigoted? Is it not laughable to be called a bigot by an advocate of religion? I think it is, and quite ironic also.

Do I advocate for socialism? I suppose, but that depends on what your idea of socialism is - since some people seem to think it's some crazy wild government system that immediately grants the country a Hitler or Stalin for a leader, and turns everyone into nationalistic drones (though I think we have enough of those currently).

Did I vote for Obama? Sure. So did a large portion of this country, to whom you are also insulting as non-intelligent and part of some worldwide, socialist, NWO conspiracy.

Not everyone believes in that crap, you know.

Lastly, again, I know you cannot attack my viewpoints on religion, since religion doesn't have an inch of ground to stand on, but please refrain from continuously attacking me instead of my views.

Do you want to discuss how religion explains nothing? Do you want to discuss how evolution may not be perfect, but natural selection does the best job to date explaining how things are the way they are?

What do you want to discuss that doesn't involve your supposed "superiority" to me?

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

With all due respect, but is it not religion that has proved itself to be bigoted? Is it not laughable to be called a bigot by an advocate of religion? I think it is, and quite ironic also.

No it isn't laughable, unless it was a bigoted advocate of religion but if you want to be as guilty of bigotry as those advocates of religion by being a bigot yourself, I guess that makes you a hypocrite AND a bigot

Now THAT is funny.

Lastly, again, I know you cannot attack my viewpoints on religion, since religion doesn't have an inch of ground to stand on, but please refrain from continuously attacking me instead of my views.

Mick, All I really KNOW about you are your "views" and even if i DID want to attack you "personally" I wouldn't know where to start. I don't know if your fat, skinny, bald, short, tall, talk with a lisp, have a cleft pallet, wear funny lookin shoes etc.

Do you want to discuss how religion explains nothing? Do you want to discuss how evolution may not be perfect, but natural selection does the best job to date explaining how things are the way they are?

Nothing has ever been shown about Natural Selection that wouldn't make me laugh because like you say of Religion, NS doesn't have a leg to stand on, much less a vestigil nub

What do you want to discuss that doesn't involve your supposed "superiority" to me?

That would be YOU doing the supposing my friend, I believe you and I can both stand outside right next to each other and the sun is gonna shine

on BOTH of us

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Aermacchi]