Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2015, 08:40 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(16-06-2015 08:36 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(15-06-2015 10:09 AM)Banjo Wrote:  What does this even mean?

It means one might laugh at the gospel, but being lost then found is no laughing matter. You laughing at a born again Christian is like laughing at emergency response personnel during dangerous events.

And your god is like a doctor running around slashing people on the street with a blade and then selling them tickets to his clinic to get stitches and all the while blaming them for getting cut in the first place. Drinking Beverage

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
16-06-2015, 08:41 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(16-06-2015 08:36 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(15-06-2015 10:09 AM)Banjo Wrote:  What does this even mean?

It means one might laugh at the gospel, but being lost then found is no laughing matter. You laughing at a born again Christian is like laughing at emergency response personnel during dangerous events.

No, it isn't. It is like laughing at clowns. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
16-06-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(16-06-2015 08:39 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(15-06-2015 11:03 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Q

Point 1: Have any proof/evidence for God's nature or even your own? This is separate from your belief that a god exists. I'll let you pass on that burden for now since you've had hundreds of posts with which to provide evidence for that claim. What I'd rather you do is provide your proof for the nature of your deity and why your nature is different?

Point 2: One whole year of University level Greek? Well shit, that makes you a scholar. Now I'll set aside my meanness and respond seriously that I am glad you understand that multiple points of view are necessary in understanding anything in this universe. It is just too bad your mind is so "washed" that you selectively filter out or inappropriately discount the massive amount of evidence contrary to your worldview. If you are as intelligent as you claim, maybe one day the big picture will fit together for you and you can cast aside the shackles of an iron age fairy tale.

Point 1: What is the necessity of providing evidence for my existence? Do you have such evidence beyond your personal claim of self-evident existence? We have two witnesses for your existence, yourself and myself. I am submitting multiple evidences for God's existence in history, cosmology, teleology - and both God and I know He exists.

Point 2: I don't in any way "block out" contrary evidence. When someone makes a point regarding geology or radiometric dating or what have you, I do some research, and I think about it.

I think you misunderstand my comment on Point 1. I did not ask for evidence of existence. In fact I specifically indicated that I wasn't asking for any proof of your god's existence. I asked you to provide proof for your knowledge of your god's nature and for contrast the proof of your knowledge of your (presumably human) nature. Here is your quote:

"1. To me it is irrelevant whether God has free will to do wrong. He only does right, and this proceeds from His nature. I do right and wrong, proceeding from my nature."

So to draw it out a bit more, How do you know that your god "only does right" and that this is "proceeds from His nature". While I agree that you can "do right and wrong", but I'd like you to define what "my nature" means.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 03:15 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2015 03:20 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(11-06-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 06:11 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You keep somehow ignoring the elements here of GOD's power. Does God have fee will himself to do wrong or not?

It's not that you knowledge is wrong, it can be wrong and to have immense confidence YOUR reading of the bible is the correct one is ignorant. It's ignoring your fallible God given nature and it's pretty shameful to that god to proclaim you have it right at any point. You think other people read or interpret it wrong; That means it's quite possible anyone including you can always be wrong about it.

How do you proclaim Jesus did no wrong? Is the standard, if Jesus did it, it's not wrong? Is not harming people wrong? Is splitting families wrong? Is not chasing people with a whip wrong? You're manipulating yourself to believe everything is good by a being that is full of harm.

1. To me it is irrelevant whether God has free will to do wrong. He only does right, and this proceeds from His nature. I do right and wrong, proceeding from my nature.

2. I could be wrong about any variety of Bible doctrines, yes. Let me tell you what I do to help myself in this regard:

* Study ancient languages - I have a university year of Greek and read often about Hebrew and Chaldean terms and ideas

* I've read the entire Bible multiple times in multiple versions

* I talk to people about various doctrines around a dozen times weekly

* I participate in outreaches frequently to people with wholly different views on my doctrines including atheists, Mormons, JWs, Catholics, Jews - I even had talks with three Muslims last week

* I pick apart every sermon as I hear it from whatever source and discuss and coach future sermons of mine and others with the sermonizers

* Etc.

Based on the above, do you think I find my doctrinal views more accurate than the average TTA member? Are they doing the above?

**

No, Jesus did only right. Which families did he split? He said, "Trusting in me will cause families to argue or even set parents against children," but so would any free will dispensation allowing, say, a Christian parent to have an atheist son. If the atheist curses their parent, did Jesus MAKE them do so?

The other objections you have could be addressed in similar ways.

Based on the above, I don't think your views are more accurate than the average internet member on this site because of the glaring significant point I keep throwing out that you ignore. You talk all about fallibility and wrongness being capable of all men but Jesus but Speak as if you are as squeaky clean as that would be.

Failing to acknowledge how flawed and capable of being wrong you personally are with your views and interpretations. It's the manner at still of which you say things, you simply place out statements COMPLETELY CONTRARY to you saying I could be wrong.

You don't deserve or won't get treated with any respect on a place that respects knowledge when you simply ASSERT you know things. People may actually respond to you calling you the term you want to be called if you acted like you understood why they object to your vase. Yet it's these types of ideas being said to you, but you ignore this type of topic repeatedly, making you come off as irrationally arrogant. People with overly assertive confidence aren't sensible to trust as accurate in their view because it's a psychological trick that is noticeable. You say now you don't care if God has free will, then it's completely senseless for you to assert "truths" you claim to know about all sentient beings having free will.

If in every post you wrote it sensibly without assertions and leaps of logic to making fallacious arguments, you would actually been at least not disdained in most conversations, and there are legit examples of it with likes of KC or some of Tomsia's posts here.(not his morality topics though)

And Jesus split families of his actual disciples... did he not tell them to leave their families and follow him? Did he not threaten and chase out people with the physical force of a whip? That is far from pristine in the moral value of harm equation.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
17-06-2015, 07:43 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(16-06-2015 08:40 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 08:36 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It means one might laugh at the gospel, but being lost then found is no laughing matter. You laughing at a born again Christian is like laughing at emergency response personnel during dangerous events.

And your god is like a doctor running around slashing people on the street with a blade and then selling them tickets to his clinic to get stitches and all the while blaming them for getting cut in the first place. Drinking Beverage

In the words of the late and lamented Leonard Nimoy, "That is highly illogical." Are you seriously suggesting that if you believed in God you would also blame Him for the suffering you cause yourself and others? How can any atheist claim substitutionary atonement is injustice on one hand, while saying if there was a God He causes the hurts we should atone for personally? Be consistent!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(16-06-2015 10:54 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 08:39 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Point 1: What is the necessity of providing evidence for my existence? Do you have such evidence beyond your personal claim of self-evident existence? We have two witnesses for your existence, yourself and myself. I am submitting multiple evidences for God's existence in history, cosmology, teleology - and both God and I know He exists.

Point 2: I don't in any way "block out" contrary evidence. When someone makes a point regarding geology or radiometric dating or what have you, I do some research, and I think about it.

I think you misunderstand my comment on Point 1. I did not ask for evidence of existence. In fact I specifically indicated that I wasn't asking for any proof of your god's existence. I asked you to provide proof for your knowledge of your god's nature and for contrast the proof of your knowledge of your (presumably human) nature. Here is your quote:

"1. To me it is irrelevant whether God has free will to do wrong. He only does right, and this proceeds from His nature. I do right and wrong, proceeding from my nature."

So to draw it out a bit more, How do you know that your god "only does right" and that this is "proceeds from His nature". While I agree that you can "do right and wrong", but I'd like you to define what "my nature" means.

I have both free will and sentience. I'm personally aware that my conscience has in the past informed me of wrongdoing and begged me to change my ways, and at times, I haven't. I'm aware both of the will to do good and of the inconsistency of doing so.

I know that God does only good. I know the Bible is proven right and true. It informs us of God's nature, His will and His desires. This would be a circular statement unless the veracity of the Bible could be proven using data outside the Bible. For example, the Bible gives fulfilled prophecies, which may be verified outside the Bible.

Put all three together--I'm aware of my will, my lack of strength, and God's will.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(16-06-2015 03:15 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. To me it is irrelevant whether God has free will to do wrong. He only does right, and this proceeds from His nature. I do right and wrong, proceeding from my nature.

2. I could be wrong about any variety of Bible doctrines, yes. Let me tell you what I do to help myself in this regard:

* Study ancient languages - I have a university year of Greek and read often about Hebrew and Chaldean terms and ideas

* I've read the entire Bible multiple times in multiple versions

* I talk to people about various doctrines around a dozen times weekly

* I participate in outreaches frequently to people with wholly different views on my doctrines including atheists, Mormons, JWs, Catholics, Jews - I even had talks with three Muslims last week

* I pick apart every sermon as I hear it from whatever source and discuss and coach future sermons of mine and others with the sermonizers

* Etc.

Based on the above, do you think I find my doctrinal views more accurate than the average TTA member? Are they doing the above?

**

No, Jesus did only right. Which families did he split? He said, "Trusting in me will cause families to argue or even set parents against children," but so would any free will dispensation allowing, say, a Christian parent to have an atheist son. If the atheist curses their parent, did Jesus MAKE them do so?

The other objections you have could be addressed in similar ways.

Based on the above, I don't think your views are more accurate than the average internet member on this site because of the glaring significant point I keep throwing out that you ignore. You talk all about fallibility and wrongness being capable of all men but Jesus but Speak as if you are as squeaky clean as that would be.

Failing to acknowledge how flawed and capable of being wrong you personally are with your views and interpretations. It's the manner at still of which you say things, you simply place out statements COMPLETELY CONTRARY to you saying I could be wrong.

You don't deserve or won't get treated with any respect on a place that respects knowledge when you simply ASSERT you know things. People may actually respond to you calling you the term you want to be called if you acted like you understood why they object to your vase. Yet it's these types of ideas being said to you, but you ignore this type of topic repeatedly, making you come off as irrationally arrogant. People with overly assertive confidence aren't sensible to trust as accurate in their view because it's a psychological trick that is noticeable. You say now you don't care if God has free will, then it's completely senseless for you to assert "truths" you claim to know about all sentient beings having free will.

If in every post you wrote it sensibly without assertions and leaps of logic to making fallacious arguments, you would actually been at least not disdained in most conversations, and there are legit examples of it with likes of KC or some of Tomsia's posts here.(not his morality topics though)

And Jesus split families of his actual disciples... did he not tell them to leave their families and follow him? Did he not threaten and chase out people with the physical force of a whip? That is far from pristine in the moral value of harm equation.

See my post above re: the sources of knowledge. My assertions and confidence are in the truths of the scriptures.

Jesus commended people who forsook all and followed Him, yes. He reproved a single man who said "Let me bury my parents first," yes. However, we can safely assume that either the parents had died that day when Jesus challenged Him to be a disciple (Jews bury human corpses within 24 hours) meaning that the man was not leaving a living family but a dead one or else that the parents needed some care but were not terminal, meaning he was delaying to do the right thing and follow Jesus.

Again, we can employ Occam's razor here. What would be the nature of something that would kill BOTH one's parents? Old age. The man was putting off following Jesus for so many years, that Jesus would have wrapped His ministry already, leaving Earth!

And as for whipping the people in the Temple, read the WHOLE text. Jesus overturned the money lenders' tables:

* In righteous anger, for the lenders were turning a place of prayer into a bank and loan

* Against usury of a sort, since the lenders were taking advantage of pilgrims without local coinage

* Per prophecies which the disciples recalled, such as "Zeal for Thy house has consumed me [Messiah]"

* Turning over tables scholars estimate weighed up to two tons each - if you saw a human angrily flipping stone tables weighing 4,000 English pounds you would see something of God at work!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 09:35 AM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(17-06-2015 07:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 10:54 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  I think you misunderstand my comment on Point 1. I did not ask for evidence of existence. In fact I specifically indicated that I wasn't asking for any proof of your god's existence. I asked you to provide proof for your knowledge of your god's nature and for contrast the proof of your knowledge of your (presumably human) nature. Here is your quote:

"1. To me it is irrelevant whether God has free will to do wrong. He only does right, and this proceeds from His nature. I do right and wrong, proceeding from my nature."

So to draw it out a bit more, How do you know that your god "only does right" and that this is "proceeds from His nature". While I agree that you can "do right and wrong", but I'd like you to define what "my nature" means.

I have both free will and sentience. I'm personally aware that my conscience has in the past informed me of wrongdoing and begged me to change my ways, and at times, I haven't. I'm aware both of the will to do good and of the inconsistency of doing so.

I know that God does only good. I know the Bible is proven right and true. It informs us of God's nature, His will and His desires. This would be a circular statement unless the veracity of the Bible could be proven using data outside the Bible. For example, the Bible gives fulfilled prophecies, which may be verified outside the Bible.

Put all three together--I'm aware of my will, my lack of strength, and God's will.

"I know the Bible is proven right and true". Just based on this utterly nonsensical statement I know that you have an utterly closed mind despite your claims to the contrary. I thought this is how you'd reply: the Bible therefore true. Sorry I wasted energy with this.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes devilsadvoc8's post
17-06-2015, 12:10 PM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(17-06-2015 07:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 03:15 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Based on the above, I don't think your views are more accurate than the average internet member on this site because of the glaring significant point I keep throwing out that you ignore. You talk all about fallibility and wrongness being capable of all men but Jesus but Speak as if you are as squeaky clean as that would be.

Failing to acknowledge how flawed and capable of being wrong you personally are with your views and interpretations. It's the manner at still of which you say things, you simply place out statements COMPLETELY CONTRARY to you saying I could be wrong.

You don't deserve or won't get treated with any respect on a place that respects knowledge when you simply ASSERT you know things. People may actually respond to you calling you the term you want to be called if you acted like you understood why they object to your vase. Yet it's these types of ideas being said to you, but you ignore this type of topic repeatedly, making you come off as irrationally arrogant. People with overly assertive confidence aren't sensible to trust as accurate in their view because it's a psychological trick that is noticeable. You say now you don't care if God has free will, then it's completely senseless for you to assert "truths" you claim to know about all sentient beings having free will.

If in every post you wrote it sensibly without assertions and leaps of logic to making fallacious arguments, you would actually been at least not disdained in most conversations, and there are legit examples of it with likes of KC or some of Tomsia's posts here.(not his morality topics though)

And Jesus split families of his actual disciples... did he not tell them to leave their families and follow him? Did he not threaten and chase out people with the physical force of a whip? That is far from pristine in the moral value of harm equation.

See my post above re: the sources of knowledge. My assertions and confidence are in the truths of the scriptures.

Jesus commended people who forsook all and followed Him, yes. He reproved a single man who said "Let me bury my parents first," yes. However, we can safely assume that either the parents had died that day when Jesus challenged Him to be a disciple (Jews bury human corpses within 24 hours) meaning that the man was not leaving a living family but a dead one or else that the parents needed some care but were not terminal, meaning he was delaying to do the right thing and follow Jesus.

Again, we can employ Occam's razor here. What would be the nature of something that would kill BOTH one's parents? Old age. The man was putting off following Jesus for so many years, that Jesus would have wrapped His ministry already, leaving Earth!

And as for whipping the people in the Temple, read the WHOLE text. Jesus overturned the money lenders' tables:

* In righteous anger, for the lenders were turning a place of prayer into a bank and loan

* Against usury of a sort, since the lenders were taking advantage of pilgrims without local coinage

* Per prophecies which the disciples recalled, such as "Zeal for Thy house has consumed me [Messiah]"

* Turning over tables scholars estimate weighed up to two tons each - if you saw a human angrily flipping stone tables weighing 4,000 English pounds you would see something of God at work!

I don't think you understand the gaping logic not within your point still. So what if Jesus displayed amazingly god like strength? Okay so what? Is that supposed to be any statement of worth? Does anything alter If your force is immense? No. Of what regard is it not HARMING them?

That isn't any sense of a logical response. This is acting against the harmfully.

Based on what you're claiming again, you still never got to the answer by saying "you don't care about it" but then why did you bother saying it. If God does or doesn't have free will... you would think you would, you ought to care about if he could suddenly change his mind about what he thinks is a good action for you or not. You claimed you know all sentient beings have free will, and all are capable of wrong. Then God would have to be capable of wrong.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: Can't say how sex evolved, therefore Adam and Eve
(17-06-2015 07:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 08:40 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  And your god is like a doctor running around slashing people on the street with a blade and then selling them tickets to his clinic to get stitches and all the while blaming them for getting cut in the first place. Drinking Beverage

In the words of the late and lamented Leonard Nimoy, "That is highly illogical." Are you seriously suggesting that if you believed in God you would also blame Him for the suffering you cause yourself and others? How can any atheist claim substitutionary atonement is injustice on one hand, while saying if there was a God He causes the hurts we should atone for personally? Be consistent!

He didn't say that - he presented a simile. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: