Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Number one, you are wrong. The dog example is a typical deductive argument. It is not empirical. For it to be correct though, the premise that “all dogs have fleas” has to be correct.
[/quote]
Whoa! That doesn’t even resemble, remotely in any way, shape or form, a deductive argument. I mean it’s not even close to being a deductive argument. Even if you managed to order it correctly, it would either still be ‘affirming the antecedent’ or ‘affirming the consequent’. So not only would it not be a deductive argument. It would be a really bad empirical argument mired in fallacy.

[quote]
Next, I am NOT appealing to authority at all. I told you long ago that I “groked” the problems with your assertions without doing a single shred of research. When you finally moved me to research, I found some other very smart people that disagree with you and your sources. They didn’t seed my ideas, only confirmed some of my thoughts. YOU are the one that posted all your references.

Finally, you are AGAIN talking in circles. I asked you a simple question. Answer the simple question. State your premise. We know you’re finger fucking “causation” over here, but simply state your premise for your infallible deductive argument. I’m waiting. State the premise. [/quote]

The premise is causation, nimrod. Look it up. I don’t give a fuck what really smart people disagree, they have to prove it wrong and have never succeeded in doing so.

For fuck’s sake, look it up. Don’t take my word for it. You cannot jedi mind trick me in to thinking garbage that is so bad, so patently false, to way off base, to not even be in the ball park of right. You really don’t know what the hell you are talking about do you? You cannot bully me in to the world of bullshit.

642

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Answer to your direct question, again:
Causation. That’s what it’s based on.[/quote]

How do you base anything on a category of perception?

Just because you must perceive causality does not mean that it exists.

[/quote]

Who says anybody can perceive it? Maybe we can, we be we cannot.

You believe heavily in science, do you not? What do you thing science is based on? If you manage to disprove causation math and science itself will be reduced to a pile of meaningless bullshit.
It’s a catch 22, if you manage to disprove causation, you disprove the other things you do believe. You’ll never have another baking-soda valcano, even if you get a math problem right it may still be wrong.
You cannot disprove causation with that which is apparently caused. You conclusion can destroy your premise.

643

[quote]pat wrote:<<< No it is impossible for matter and energy to be non-contingent. Mainly because it is contingent. >>>[/quote]Do I really have to say it Pat?[quote]pat wrote:<<< Again, always existing does not matter, lot’s of things can fit the definition on being eternal, >>>[/quote]Do you have any idea of the concession you just made? I’m talkin philosophically. That’s not even mentioning that even your church recognizes that only God is truly eternal.[quote]pat wrote: but none of them are none contingent. Matter and energy do not have that property uniquely. Further, as discussed, matter and energy do not exist independently and can do nothing on their own. Something must act on them for them to do anything at all. That’s a huge problem for claiming non-contingency.

Benevolence or omniscience isn’t properties of the uncaused-cause, it’s the result of being. But even if you removed that, you still have an uncaused-cause. The only way to disassemble that is to remove existence, then it would just be an uncaused thing, not an uncaused-causer. >>>[/quote]The rest of this ranges from a bit of cerebral fumbling to a simple restatement of your position without anything like a demonstration of conceptually closed consistency. Not because you’re an idiot, but because you are tasking yourself with defending the indefensible as long as you insist on playing in their building. Actually it’s your building too, but not God’s which has been my point all along. I’ll hasten to add that there is no shortage of protestants in the same predicament.

644

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And I’ll play your game some more since you like to label shit and “sound smart”. When you answer my direct question challenging you to state your premise clearly, I want you to identify whether that premise is based on a priori knowledge or a posteriori knowledge. When you do this (clearly state your premise and the basis for it) I will respond further.

Or, you can keep talking in circle while avoiding any serious debate or challenge.[/quote]

The premise? Oh yeah, it’s causation. Thought I mentioned that, but if I was remiss, it’s causation.

serious debate? LOL! Is that what this is? Silly me. Continuously throwing extremely bad versions of ‘logic’ at me is not exactely what I’d call serious debate. But keep going…

645

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< No it is impossible for matter and energy to be non-contingent. Mainly because it is contingent. >>>[/quote]Do I really have to say it Pat?
[/quote]
Yes you do. What are you talking about? Really what are you talking about? You turning atheist?

You misunderstand. Temporally eternal is a one dimensional view of eternity. Further, anything that exists outside of time is time independent. There’s loads of things that fit that definition which are not God.

Yes, but you’re wrong. I know it’s not what you believe. But what you believe I think is very wrong. Truth is truth. Where the truth is, so is God. That’s what you do not realize, either for fear, or submission to dogma is that truth is, what is the case. When you have to sacrifice truth for the sake of faith, guess where the problem is, and it’s not in the truth. God is truth. Jesus came to testify to the truth, he is the truth. What is true is of God, to God, through God. If seeking truth is wrong, let me be anathema.

646

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Number one, you are wrong. The dog example is a typical deductive argument. It is not empirical. For it to be correct though, the premise that “all dogs have fleas” has to be correct.
[/quote]
Whoa! That doesn’t even resemble, remotely in any way, shape or form, a deductive argument. I mean it’s not even close to being a deductive argument. Even if you managed to order it correctly, it would either still be ‘affirming the antecedent’ or ‘affirming the consequent’. So not only would it not be a deductive argument. It would be a really bad empirical argument mired in fallacy.

Brilliant!!! Simply “causation”?

Wake me up when you can simply state the exact premise that forms your deductive argument. Why do I have to “look it up”. Your replies are now officially ridiculous. State your premise, or continue to baffle us with bullshit under the guise of intellectuality.

647

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And I’ll play your game some more since you like to label shit and “sound smart”. When you answer my direct question challenging you to state your premise clearly, I want you to identify whether that premise is based on a priori knowledge or a posteriori knowledge. When you do this (clearly state your premise and the basis for it) I will respond further.

Or, you can keep talking in circle while avoiding any serious debate or challenge.[/quote]

The premise? Oh yeah, it’s causation. Thought I mentioned that, but if I was remiss, it’s causation.

serious debate? LOL! Is that what this is? Silly me. Continuously throwing extremely bad versions of ‘logic’ at me is not exactely what I’d call serious debate. But keep going…[/quote]

Is this really all there is to you? Seriously? Pull your dress down and answer the question instead of trying to be so cute. Causation. Causation what. STATE your premise.

648

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Answer to your direct question, again:
Causation. That’s what it’s based on.[/quote]

How do you base anything on a category of perception?

Just because you must perceive causality does not mean that it exists.

[/quote]

Who says anybody can perceive it? Maybe we can, we be we cannot.

You believe heavily in science, do you not? What do you thing science is based on? If you manage to disprove causation math and science itself will be reduced to a pile of meaningless bullshit.
It’s a catch 22, if you manage to disprove causation, you disprove the other things you do believe. You’ll never have another baking-soda valcano, even if you get a math problem right it may still be wrong.
You cannot disprove causation with that which is apparently caused. You conclusion can destroy your premise.[/quote]

Word play and incredibly obtuse or, just plain fucking stubbornly dogmatic.

649

[quote]pat wrote:

You misunderstand. Temporally eternal is a one dimensional view of eternity. Further, anything that exists outside of time is time independent. There’s loads of things that fit that definition which are not God.

[quote]

So, please list the things that exist outside of time and are “time independent” as you call it.

650

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Answer to your direct question, again:
Causation. That’s what it’s based on.[/quote]

How do you base anything on a category of perception?

Just because you must perceive causality does not mean that it exists.

[/quote]

Who says anybody can perceive it? Maybe we can, we be we cannot.

You believe heavily in science, do you not? What do you thing science is based on? If you manage to disprove causation math and science itself will be reduced to a pile of meaningless bullshit.
It’s a catch 22, if you manage to disprove causation, you disprove the other things you do believe. You’ll never have another baking-soda valcano, even if you get a math problem right it may still be wrong.
You cannot disprove causation with that which is apparently caused. You conclusion can destroy your premise.[/quote]

I am not talking about proving anything, I am talking about ctaegories of perception, the ordering filters of your mind.

The fact that you cannot not think in terms of causality says more about you and the way your mind works than about the universe.

651

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[/quote]
22-What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23-in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.

I was merely pointing out those words at the beginning of verse 22 there.[/quote]You’re not seriously proposing that Paul’s use of that phraseology indicates that he didn’t actually believe that’s what happened? Jake, ol buddy, (well, for a few weeks anyway) the middle voice argument, (prepared themselves) while wrong, is still much better than that one.

He is directly relating these here “vessels” into one purpose. Some prepared for destruction and some for glory. Paul is saying right here that God restrained Himself from sooner destroying the former so as to more gloriously display his mercy in the latter. All prepared beforehand. We can dispute and argue for the rest our natural lives and Paul will be still be saying that while the Word of God yet prevails. Guess how long that will be.

See this goes right along with the hypothetical question of verse 19. “What, GOD CANNOT BE JUST IF HE PREDESTINES PEOPLE!!!” (accurate paraphrase). Sound familiar? Paul response? Shaddup. (another accurate paraphrase)
[/quote]
Don’t jump to conclusions. I was merely pondering out loud (in writing). It would be difficult for me to say anything about that “phraseology” unless I really knew the original language and knew Paul personally (like he was my good buddy). It was more like me pondering “what if” as I don’t believe what you espouse Paul means here, but I was reflecting on what if it is true (trying to put myself in your shoes not words or meaning into Paul’s mouth or mind).

I do think what he is saying is that people are foolish to call God unjust (pointing out human insolence, I’m sure we will agree there). If what you say is true about God then I wouldn’t call Him unjust either (He is God after all). I don’t think predestination as you lay it out though is correct as it is contradictory to many things and makes many things meaningless.

Really, I just think God operates differently than you do. Something like this: God gives everyone a chance (grace) some take it (live a life of repentence and faith) and HE SAVES them, others do not and HE ALLOWS them to deny it. God is still the author of all things, but He does not force people to bend to His will. God loses no sovreignty in this and man is in no way elevated to God’s level just because we are given a choice.

[/quote]

This is consistent with my reading of the bible as well. It would be unjust for God to condemn people to hell without giving them an opportunity to repent and be saved. But once given that opportunity, those who reject it are justly condemned to hell, even if they insist it is unjust.

652

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
How can something be contingent in existence then, if it can’t be created? If it was never created, how can it depend on anything to be brought into existence? It was never created, so it was never brought into existence.[/quote]

There are two way to look at it. If something is contingent on something else, then the something is dependent on something else. Even if it has always existed.
And technically if it happens extra temporally, then it’s always eternal. So by that thought process it can be both created and eternal because it happened out side of time.

Both are possible, one is true. I just don’t know which is which.
Gotta run…[/quote]

You keep bringing time into it, and time is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it has always existed, that says nothing about whether or not it was created.

Again, please be very clear that we are talking about contingent existence, not contingent interaction. And by contingent existence, I’m specifically talking about original existence, not ongoing existence. I’m not even getting into the possible destruction of matter/energy at this point. I’m talking very specifically about the noncontingency of matter/energy in its original existence.

If something was not created, how can its original existence be contingent? It’s not, because nothing created it. If nothing created it, it is definitionally noncontingent.

Can you at least acknowledge that this is a real possibility?[/quote]

That something came from nothing? No that is not a possibility at all. Everything exists because of something else, except for that which is uncaused. Regression necessitates that it can only be one thing.
If you take away a piece from a puzzle it ceases to be a completed puzzle. Whether or not that puzzle exited forever, it requires that piece to be what it is. Probably not the best analogy. But if you picture our movement in time as a journey across a large straw or tube, you step out of the tube and look at it from one end or another, everything happens simultaneously there.

However, if something wasn’t created or contingent, then something from nothing would be proven.[/quote]

No. I’m asking you to acknowledge the possibility that matter/energy is noncontingent. This is exactly what the laws of conservation assert, since once again we are talking about contingent original creation, which is impossible for matter/energy,

You’re arguing that matter can’t be noncontingent because if you removed one of its properties, like spin or charge, it would no longer be matter.

What you’re missing is that the identical criticism applies to god. You could similarly argue that god can’t be noncontingent, because if you removed one of his properties, like omnipotence or benevolence, he would no longer be god.

God is as dependent on his defining properties as matter is dependent on its defining properties. The existence of properties doesn’t imply something cannot be noncontingent.
[/quote]

No it is impossible for matter and energy to be non-contingent. Mainly because it is contingent. Again, always existing does not matter, lot’s of things can fit the definition on being eternal, but none of them are none contingent. Matter and energy do not have that property uniquely. Further, as discussed, matter and energy do not exist independently and can do nothing on their own. Something must act on them for them to do anything at all. That’s a huge problem for claiming non-contingency.

Benevolence or omniscience isn’t properties of the uncaused-cause, it’s the result of being. But even if you removed that, you still have an uncaused-cause. The only way to disassemble that is to remove existence, then it would just be an uncaused thing, not an uncaused-causer.

[/quote]

Pat, I’m getting the feeling that either you’re not reading my replies closely, or I’m doing a bad job of making my point. I’ll try again :slight_smile:

As I said earlier, I’m not claiming that matter/energy (ME) is noncontingent because it has always existed.

Please read the above, because you keep arguing against a point I’m not making.

I’m suggesting that ME is noncontingent because it cannot be created.

It doesn’t matter that ME can interact causally with ME. The ongoing interactions of ME are irrelevant to my point, which has to do with the actual creation of ME. God can interact with men as well, but that says nothing about whether or not God was created.

If something was created, it must be contingent in its existence. If something was not created, it must be noncontingent in its existence.

Please specifically address the above sentence. If you disagree, please explain why.

653

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< This is consistent with my reading of the bible as well. It would be unjust for God to condemn people to hell without giving them an opportunity to repent and be saved. But once given that opportunity, those who reject it are justly condemned to hell, even if they insist it is unjust.[/quote]You have a rude awakening coming. God is just because He’s God. Not because He attains to YOUR standard of justice. Keep it up.

654

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< This is consistent with my reading of the bible as well. It would be unjust for God to condemn people to hell without giving them an opportunity to repent and be saved. But once given that opportunity, those who reject it are justly condemned to hell, even if they insist it is unjust.[/quote]You have a rude awakening coming.
[/quote]

Which rude awakening would that be? I’m confused, because scores of religions (many of them Christian) differ on the details, and indeed on whether or not a rude awakening is even my due.

That’s the problem with beliefs based on emotions rather than evidence. It’s so hard to reach consensus, because emotions lead people to such different conclusions.

Like a ship without a rudder, you become the sport of every wind. You convince yourself that you have the real rudder, and the thousands of other ships at sea are only using imaginary rudders. Yet in the end, yours is as imaginary as theirs.

655

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
How can something be contingent in existence then, if it can’t be created? If it was never created, how can it depend on anything to be brought into existence? It was never created, so it was never brought into existence.[/quote]

There are two way to look at it. If something is contingent on something else, then the something is dependent on something else. Even if it has always existed.
And technically if it happens extra temporally, then it’s always eternal. So by that thought process it can be both created and eternal because it happened out side of time.

Both are possible, one is true. I just don’t know which is which.
Gotta run…[/quote]

You keep bringing time into it, and time is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it has always existed, that says nothing about whether or not it was created.

Again, please be very clear that we are talking about contingent existence, not contingent interaction. And by contingent existence, I’m specifically talking about original existence, not ongoing existence. I’m not even getting into the possible destruction of matter/energy at this point. I’m talking very specifically about the noncontingency of matter/energy in its original existence.

If something was not created, how can its original existence be contingent? It’s not, because nothing created it. If nothing created it, it is definitionally noncontingent.

Can you at least acknowledge that this is a real possibility?[/quote]

That something came from nothing? No that is not a possibility at all. Everything exists because of something else, except for that which is uncaused. Regression necessitates that it can only be one thing.
If you take away a piece from a puzzle it ceases to be a completed puzzle. Whether or not that puzzle exited forever, it requires that piece to be what it is. Probably not the best analogy. But if you picture our movement in time as a journey across a large straw or tube, you step out of the tube and look at it from one end or another, everything happens simultaneously there.

However, if something wasn’t created or contingent, then something from nothing would be proven.[/quote]

No. I’m asking you to acknowledge the possibility that matter/energy is noncontingent. This is exactly what the laws of conservation assert, since once again we are talking about contingent original creation, which is impossible for matter/energy,

You’re arguing that matter can’t be noncontingent because if you removed one of its properties, like spin or charge, it would no longer be matter.

What you’re missing is that the identical criticism applies to god. You could similarly argue that god can’t be noncontingent, because if you removed one of his properties, like omnipotence or benevolence, he would no longer be god.

God is as dependent on his defining properties as matter is dependent on its defining properties. The existence of properties doesn’t imply something cannot be noncontingent.
[/quote]

No it is impossible for matter and energy to be non-contingent. Mainly because it is contingent. Again, always existing does not matter, lot’s of things can fit the definition on being eternal, but none of them are none contingent. Matter and energy do not have that property uniquely. Further, as discussed, matter and energy do not exist independently and can do nothing on their own. Something must act on them for them to do anything at all. That’s a huge problem for claiming non-contingency.

Benevolence or omniscience isn’t properties of the uncaused-cause, it’s the result of being. But even if you removed that, you still have an uncaused-cause. The only way to disassemble that is to remove existence, then it would just be an uncaused thing, not an uncaused-causer.

[/quote]

Pat, I’m getting the feeling that either you’re not reading my replies closely, or I’m doing a bad job of making my point. I’ll try again :slight_smile:

As I said earlier, I’m not claiming that matter/energy (ME) is noncontingent because it has always existed.

Please read the above, because you keep arguing against a point I’m not making.

I’m suggesting that ME is noncontingent because it cannot be created.

It doesn’t matter that ME can interact causally with ME. The ongoing interactions of ME are irrelevant to my point, which has to do with the actual creation of ME. God can interact with men as well, but that says nothing about whether or not God was created.

If something was created, it must be contingent in its existence. If something was not created, it must be noncontingent in its existence.

Please specifically address the above sentence. If you disagree, please explain why.[/quote]
You’re using laws which are contingent on the existence of a nature for which they are laws to say that nature is not contingent.

656

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< This is consistent with my reading of the bible as well. It would be unjust for God to condemn people to hell without giving them an opportunity to repent and be saved. But once given that opportunity, those who reject it are justly condemned to hell, even if they insist it is unjust.[/quote]You have a rude awakening coming. God is just because He’s God. Not because He attains to YOUR standard of justice. Keep it up.
[/quote]

Yeah, so he is the big Alpha Male in the sky and he will punish me if I do not live up to his rather arbitrary standards.

I am impressed, seems like someone I would swear allegiance to.

Yay, an ommipotent space bully, we were running short of too powerful egolamaniacs down here.

657

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
How can something be contingent in existence then, if it can’t be created? If it was never created, how can it depend on anything to be brought into existence? It was never created, so it was never brought into existence.[/quote]

There are two way to look at it. If something is contingent on something else, then the something is dependent on something else. Even if it has always existed.
And technically if it happens extra temporally, then it’s always eternal. So by that thought process it can be both created and eternal because it happened out side of time.

Both are possible, one is true. I just don’t know which is which.
Gotta run…[/quote]

You keep bringing time into it, and time is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it has always existed, that says nothing about whether or not it was created.

Again, please be very clear that we are talking about contingent existence, not contingent interaction. And by contingent existence, I’m specifically talking about original existence, not ongoing existence. I’m not even getting into the possible destruction of matter/energy at this point. I’m talking very specifically about the noncontingency of matter/energy in its original existence.

If something was not created, how can its original existence be contingent? It’s not, because nothing created it. If nothing created it, it is definitionally noncontingent.

Can you at least acknowledge that this is a real possibility?[/quote]

That something came from nothing? No that is not a possibility at all. Everything exists because of something else, except for that which is uncaused. Regression necessitates that it can only be one thing.
If you take away a piece from a puzzle it ceases to be a completed puzzle. Whether or not that puzzle exited forever, it requires that piece to be what it is. Probably not the best analogy. But if you picture our movement in time as a journey across a large straw or tube, you step out of the tube and look at it from one end or another, everything happens simultaneously there.

However, if something wasn’t created or contingent, then something from nothing would be proven.[/quote]

No. I’m asking you to acknowledge the possibility that matter/energy is noncontingent. This is exactly what the laws of conservation assert, since once again we are talking about contingent original creation, which is impossible for matter/energy,

You’re arguing that matter can’t be noncontingent because if you removed one of its properties, like spin or charge, it would no longer be matter.

What you’re missing is that the identical criticism applies to god. You could similarly argue that god can’t be noncontingent, because if you removed one of his properties, like omnipotence or benevolence, he would no longer be god.

God is as dependent on his defining properties as matter is dependent on its defining properties. The existence of properties doesn’t imply something cannot be noncontingent.
[/quote]

No it is impossible for matter and energy to be non-contingent. Mainly because it is contingent. Again, always existing does not matter, lot’s of things can fit the definition on being eternal, but none of them are none contingent. Matter and energy do not have that property uniquely. Further, as discussed, matter and energy do not exist independently and can do nothing on their own. Something must act on them for them to do anything at all. That’s a huge problem for claiming non-contingency.

Benevolence or omniscience isn’t properties of the uncaused-cause, it’s the result of being. But even if you removed that, you still have an uncaused-cause. The only way to disassemble that is to remove existence, then it would just be an uncaused thing, not an uncaused-causer.

[/quote]

Pat, I’m getting the feeling that either you’re not reading my replies closely, or I’m doing a bad job of making my point. I’ll try again :slight_smile:

As I said earlier, I’m not claiming that matter/energy (ME) is noncontingent because it has always existed.

Please read the above, because you keep arguing against a point I’m not making.

I’m suggesting that ME is noncontingent because it cannot be created.

It doesn’t matter that ME can interact causally with ME. The ongoing interactions of ME are irrelevant to my point, which has to do with the actual creation of ME. God can interact with men as well, but that says nothing about whether or not God was created.

If something was created, it must be contingent in its existence. If something was not created, it must be noncontingent in its existence.

Please specifically address the above sentence. If you disagree, please explain why.[/quote]
You’re using laws which are contingent on the existence of a nature for which they are laws to say that nature is not contingent.[/quote]

All laws are contingent on the existence of what they describe. Your criticism applies identically to god, and fails on the same count.

658

@BC

I married into a Catholic family so every now and then I go to mass with the wife. For background I was raised Presbyterian. Anyway I have 3 questions.

  1. Why is Mary such a large part of Catholicism and why isn’t the use of “Hail Mary”, Mary statues, and other Mary implements such as necklaces considered a false idol?

  2. How does the Catholic church justify making a man a Saint? Is there backing on this from the bible?

  3. Why pray to the saints? For example when I lose something my mother in law always says to pray to Saint Anthony (I think Anthony I am probably misremembering)? Isn’t having another god other than the God?

Not really contradictions more just general questions I’m curious about.

Thanks in advance,

Chris

659

[quote]orion wrote:
<<< Yeah, so he is the big Alpha Male in the sky and he will punish me if I do not live up to his rather arbitrary standards. >>>[/quote]HE is the standard and nobody lives up to Him. Nobody. Most assuredly including me. God Himself has provided the only remedy. He would have been absolutely just and right to have left every last one of us dead in our sin, but praise His holy name, by His everlasting grace, mercy and loving kindness, He eternally purposed to save those who trust their lives to the victorious sacrifice of His Son.

660

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
<<< Yeah, so he is the big Alpha Male in the sky and he will punish me if I do not live up to his rather arbitrary standards. >>>[/quote]HE is the standard and nobody lives up to Him. Nobody. Most assuredly including me. God Himself has provided the only remedy. He would have been absolutely just and right to have left every last one of us dead in our sin, but praise His holy name, by His everlasting grace, mercy and loving kindness, He eternally purposed to save those who trust their lives to the victorious sacrifice of His Son.
[/quote]

What a bunch of irrational poppycock. According to your doctrine, you were born into sin. Can you think of anything else more unfair? Of course not. Imagine a petty God, allowing “his children” to be born into “sin” to be condemned unless they follow some equivalent of an Easter egg hunt to find the right religion, the right answers. If you see the hand of the Almighty, all merciful, perfect God, good for you. I see the attributes of man trying to control the herd.