Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[kenblaster5000]

How comforting to be able to evade any consequences for your transgressions. I can see why religious belief is so appealing.


How convenient to have someone else pay for your crimes with his death.

You must have eyes to see and ears to hear what the Spirit is saying and revealing to His church. It is not convenient. I do not trample upon the blood of Jesus Christ and do not take it lightly. If it is so appealing, I am here to explain in more detail. I do not aspire to live a life of hypocrisy, and I do not throw stones, living in a house of glass. I am built up in my most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost and I have the shield of faith to extinguish ALL fiery darts of the wicked one. I cannot be partially in and partially out. I am either fully in or fully out. Everything is black or white, darkness or light, especially in the time to come, and great darkness and great light is on the horizon, but if you are full of darkness, then you will not recognize the light. Be blessed.

 

[Doveaman]

So even though Eve disobeyed God and ate from the tree, only Adam was punished? What are you saying?

Eve is just as dead as Adam.

Evolved what? Humans became "human" by classification only. We still retain some of our ancestral composition. It's not accurate to say, "once there were no humans and then suddenly there were humans."

Satan is still a spirit. He was a good spirit, then he evolved to an evil spirit. His goodness was not absolute. Only God's goodness is absolute.

However, you are indeed proposing that once there was absolutely no evil, but then Satan spontaneously became evil. If there were no such thing as evil, how did Satan become evil? If everything is good, how can anything be evil?

Evolution.

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." - Rom 1:21-22.

 

[Doveaman]

Macro or Micro Evolution?

Maicro Evolution.

 

[Doveaman]

Yet Satan can only do what God allows him to do.

Yep.

So why does God allow it if he is all-good?

He is not a dictator.

So why did he create Satan in the first place, knowing the trouble he would cause?

Something is only considered "trouble" if you don't know what to do about it.

God knows everything.

Except for the whole ridding evil from the world with the flood.

He did.

Or driving all of the Canaanites out of the promised land.

He did.

Or...

He did...

 

[Doveaman]

Well that is my point. If deists believe god gives us morals and the ability to tell right from wrong. why did he bother if everything we do is evil by default?

I'm not a "deists", so I don't know where they get their morals from. I get mine form God.

Everything is evil because we rejected God.

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." - Rom 1:21-22.

 

[Doveaman]

"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." KJV Genesis 6:7

If at first you don't succeed... Still it turns out he changed his mind again.

That's not a change of mind. That's an expression of grief over the evil of Man.

If God had changed His mind about creating Man, the Ark would have sank.

 

[pgp_protector]

Maicro Evolution.

LOL you can't answer the question, so make up new words.

 

[3sigma]

Everything is evil because we rejected God.

Everything does include you, right? However, you [post=53932011]stated[/post] earlier that you were 100% good, 100% of the time. It’s just one contradiction after another with you.

 

[3sigma]

I sow good seed into my children, and they rise up and call me blessed, because I am blessed by God.

In other words, you’ve indoctrinated your children with your unwarranted beliefs.

My daughter is capable of thinking for herself, and knows how to discern right and wrong.

So she’s an atheist then? How does that sit with you?

 

[3sigma]

I am built up in my most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost and I have the shield of faith to extinguish ALL fiery darts of the wicked one.

Here we have another example of religious belief being used as a shield against the harshness of reality. Are you afraid of dying? Don’t worry, your religion teaches that you will never really die. Are you reluctant to accept responsibility for your actions? Never mind, your religion teaches that someone else was executed so that you could evade a penalty for crimes that you may commit.

I cannot be partially in and partially out. I am either fully in or fully out. Everything is black or white, darkness or light…

And here is another example of the binary mode of thinking and tendency towards extreme or polarized positions prevalent among religious believers. It is trying to apply this black or white thinking to a world that is predominantly shades of grey that causes so much trouble.

 

[theFijian]

In other words, you’ve indoctrinated your children with your unwarranted beliefs.

Uh, so what do you teach your kids at home?

So she’s an atheist then? How does that sit with you?

So your unwarranted belief is the correct one then?

 

[3sigma]

Uh, so what do you teach your kids at home?

I have no children, but if I did, I certainly wouldn’t fill their heads with unsupported nonsense.

So your unwarranted belief is the correct one then?

I have no religious beliefs.

 

[BananaSlug]

SEE WHAT I MEAN?!?!?!?!? Every single thread on here eventually becomes a GA thread. Creationism is a from of apologetics. To a creationist, a literal understanding of Genesis 1 in integral to their faith. If Genesis 1 is wrong, the whole Bible is wrong. It is pointless to try and prevent this forum from going into GA discussions because creationism is an apologetic discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

SEE WHAT I MEAN?!?!?!?!? Every single thread on here eventually becomes a GA thread. Creationism is a from of apologetics. To a creationist, a literal understanding of Genesis 1 in integral to their faith. If Genesis 1 is wrong, the whole Bible is wrong. It is pointless to try and prevent this forum from going into GA discussions because creationism is an apologetic discussion.

A literal creation offsets evolution --- otherwise these threads would be evolution unchecked.

Like a runaway train.

 

[BananaSlug]

A literal creation offsets evolution --- otherwise these threads would be evolution unchecked.

Like a runaway train.

That is not the problem. We are constantly told that C&E is not a forum for apologetic discussions, yet debating about creation vs. evolution is an apologetic discussion.

Here is an example:

"Evolution is a religion of death, which is the enemy of God".

Right at the beginning it is already an apologetic discussion. The first thing the average evolutionist would say would be along the lines of, "what about all those people God killed?" A more proper response would be, "organisms with beneficial traits have more offspring that organisms with maladaptive traits. If anything, evolution is the science of life."

Granted, many of us get drawn into apologetic discussions because any evidence we mention in support of evolution is instantly waved away (Slug's 4rd Law), and more religious based arguments are thrown our way. Debating creation vs evolution should be about the physical evidence. If God did create the earth and universe as the Bible says he did, there should be physical evidence. To prevent debates from crumbling into apologetics, both groups should provide evidence to support their claims. "Evidence" means showing physical evidence in the form of scientific articles, papers, etc.

 

[Nathan Poe]

A literal creation offsets evolution --- otherwise these threads would be evolution unchecked.

Any reason evolution should be "checked," more than, say, algebra?

 

[Doveaman]

If God did create the earth and universe as the Bible says he did, there should be physical evidence.

What evidence do I have of your first pair of shoes? None!

Does this mean there is no evidence of your first pair of shoes?

Does this mean you didn’t have a first pair of shoes?

My lack of evidence does not change the fact that you did have a first pair of shoes, which makes my lack of evidence irrelevant.

"Evidence" means showing physical evidence in the form of scientific articles, papers, etc.

If it's not scientific, then it's not true, right?

Because scientists are omniscient, right?

If God exist, they must know, right?

If they don't know, He doesn't exist, right?

Right.

 

[Doveaman]

Everything does include you, right? However, you [post=53932011]stated[/post] earlier that you were 100% good, 100% of the time. It’s just one contradiction after another with you.

No contradictions. You are being too logical. Human logic has its limits in the real world.

In the real world there are many things human logic cannot make sense of. Good and evil are two of them.

 

[sandwiches]

No contradictions. You are being too logical. Human logic has its limits in the real world.

You stated that you're 100% good 100% of the time and then you state that everything is evil. Are you saying that we're making too much sense when it comes to YOUR statements? I have to say, this is a pretty sad cop out and ad hoc argument.

In the real world there are many things human logic cannot make sense of. Good and evil are two of them.

What about your statements? Are those part of the 'many things human logic cannot make sense of?'

 

[sandwiches]

What evidence do I have of your first pair of shoes? None!

Does this mean there is no evidence of your first pair of shoes?

Does this mean you didn’t have a first pair of shoes?

My lack of evidence does not change the fact that you did have a first pair of shoes, which makes my lack of evidence irrelevant.
If it's not scientific, then it's not true, right?

This analogy is pretty easy to shoot down, as evidence for the claim 'I've had a first pair of shoes' is extremely easy to show. Just come see me and you'll see me wearing shoes. If I'm wearing shoes, then either this is my first pair of shoes OR I had a first of shoes before this. Either way, that's the evidence and the end to this silly analogy. If you think your analogy was hard to crack or made a lot of sense, then I can see why you'd think your arguments are impenetrable.

Now, if the claim is 'the shoes I'm wearing is my first pair of shoes,' then there might indeed be no way to substantiate that claim. Then, it'd be reasonable to say 'I have seen no reasonable evidence to accept your claim as true.'

Because scientists are omniscient, right?

If God exist, they must know, right?

If they don't know, He doesn't exist, right?

Right.

No one has to be omniscient to not have a belief in what can't be independently verified nor observed.