Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I don't admit that at all, and I do not ''know that I'm not right''.
Ok, so your beliefs have been proven to be conflicted and contradictory and you choose to deny it. Fine. And the only way you can now remain unaware that you are not right is if you do not comprehend what has been said.
Quote:
I do know however that you lack understanding. And I have said more than once now that God did NOT create imperfection, and you keep implying that I did, and you can't even seem to understand that.
Quite the contrary. I see that you have contradicted yourself and have chosen to not recognize it. I showed you the contradictions. I detailed and explained them. But you still deny them and repeat them. Did God create a man capable of sin? "Yes" you say. Then God created an imperfect man since sin is imperfection and God created imperfect man, so He created imperfection or it wouldn't exist. And you can't see this simple thing. More likely you refuse to see it though you can if you choose to.
Quote:
You don't believe that what is said in the Bible is true
The Bible is loaded with contradictions and contradictions cannot be true. But you can't see that, either, right?
Quote:
and you don't believe that the human writers of the Bible were carried along by the Holy Spirit so that what they wrote is accurate.
Now you read minds? Fact is all this would be a moot point if the Bible were read as it was intended to be read. The problem here is that modern believers insist on taking the Bible as a literal report of historical facts that are literally true. It is not. It was meant to be used for inspiration, not fact study.
Quote:
Instead you attempt to use your reasoning to show that what is written in the Bible about God cannot be true. And you are sadly mistaken.
I have repeatedly called for you and anyone to refute what I've said with sound reasoning. You can't. And no, what is written cannot be "true" because it is contradictory within itself, plus it contradicts physics, logic, and consistency. It is very inconsistent. So no, I am most certainly not mistaken.
Quote:
But suit yourself. I simply have no interest in carrying on a conversation with someone about a subject in which they maintain a position that they will hold no matter what is said.
Do you not see that to be exactly what you do? The difference is that you hold to unsupportable and illogical belief while I hold to consistency, sound reasoning, and fact.
Quote:
Nor do I have the need or desire to argue with someone who says that I don't think simply because I don't agree with him. And so, we're done.
You met your match so you run to escape. Typical. bye.
Ok, so your beliefs have been proven to be conflicted and contradictory and you choose to deny it. Fine. And the only way you can now remain unaware that you are not right is if you do not comprehend what has been said.
Quite the contrary. I see that you have contradicted yourself and have chosen to not recognize it. I showed you the contradictions. I detailed and explained them. But you still deny them and repeat them. Did God create a man capable of sin? "Yes" you say. Then God created an imperfect man since sin is imperfection and God created imperfect man, so He created imperfection or it wouldn't exist. And you can't see this simple thing. More likely you refuse to see it though you can if you choose to.
The Bible is loaded with contradictions and contradictions cannot be true. But you can't see that, either, right?
Now you read minds? Fact is all this would be a moot point if the Bible were read as it was intended to be read. The problem here is that modern believers insist on taking the Bible as a literal report of historical facts that are literally true. It is not. It was meant to be used for inspiration, not fact study.
I have repeatedly called for you and anyone to refute what I've said with sound reasoning. You can't. And no, what is written cannot be "true" because it is contradictory within itself, plus it contradicts physics, logic, and consistency. It is very inconsistent. So no, I am most certainly not mistaken.
Do you not see that to be exactly what you do? The difference is that you hold to unsupportable and illogical belief while I hold to consistency, sound reasoning, and fact.
You met your match so you run to escape. Typical. bye.
An immature childish attempt to keep a debate going doesn't work with me. Your opinion, which is wrong, is your opinion, and nothing more. And what you consider sound reasoning . . . isn't. And yes, we are done.
Last edited by Michael Way; 08-24-2016 at 04:14 PM..
On the issues of perfection and imperfection, you are probably correct in this part of your debate. I see no need for God to have the requirement to make an absolutely perfect being like himself who is incapable of imperfection just because he himself is perfect. If Gods intention is to create a world of potential free will, I see no concrete logical reason to say it isn't possible for God to create a being who is a 'perfect human' with all the limitations of humanity who still has the "potential for sin" which may be included in God's definition of a perfect human. Perfection can be a relative term depending on its usage so I think you are correct in this regard ...but the claim that a single sin is justification for eternal torment in a universe where God made the rules...that's another story
Okay. At least you agree with the first part. If you can't find it in yourself to believe that sin put man into a fallen state leaving him with an imperfect righteousness that falls short of God's requirement of perfect righteousness which put up a barrier between man and God resulting in eternal separation of man from God unless God does something about it, which He did by sending Christ into the world to die for the sins of the world so that anyone who simply believes on Him is no longer under condemnation, but is credited with the perfect righteousness of Christ thus qualifying him to enter into an eternal relationship with God, then that's between you and God. But it is a Biblically taught doctrine.
I went into more detail in post #6 if you or anyone else is interested in reading it again, or for the first time. If not . . . okay, whatever.
Okay. At least you agree with the first part. If you can't find it in yourself to believe that sin put man into a fallen state leaving him with an imperfect righteousness that falls short of God's requirement of perfect righteousness which put up a barrier between man and God resulting in eternal separation of man from God unless God does something about it, which He did by sending Christ into the world to die for the sins of the world so that anyone who simply believes on Him is no longer under condemnation, but is credited with the perfect righteousness of Christ thus qualifying him to enter into an eternal relationship with God, then that's between you and God. But it is a Biblically taught doctrine.
I went into more detail in post #6 if you or anyone else is interested in reading it again, or for the first time. If not . . . okay, whatever.
When you put it that way, it doesn't sound half as bad as 99% of all humankind inevitably being tortured forever for what is ultimately the result of Gods own impossible standards that are based on the rules and plan he supposedly made at the beginning of time...maybe its just wording!
No, I'm not against the God creating a penal substitution system of atonement (I prefer something more like "self sacrificial atonement to show us the redeeming power of what 'no greater love' is" since God having some sort of absolute requirement for blood makes him sound like a cosmic vampire, but that's just me) with Jesus as long as its at least somewhat reasonable from a moral standpoint and doesn't sound like something out of a Saw movie like ET does. All I know is that we are saved, Jesus did it, and I very hard if not impossible to believe God is crazy enough to create a system of rules where most people end up inevitably suffering horribly forever all because they missed the alter call event at youth group (or whatever million other circumstances that cause most of humanity to miss the boat).
Okay. At least you agree with the first part. If you can't find it in yourself to believe that sin put man into a fallen state leaving him with an imperfect righteousness that falls short of God's requirement of perfect righteousness which put up a barrier between man and God resulting in eternal separation of man from God unless God does something about it, which He did by sending Christ into the world to die for the sins of the world so that anyone who simply believes on Him is no longer under condemnation, but is credited with the perfect righteousness of Christ thus qualifying him to enter into an eternal relationship with God, then that's between you and God. But it is a Biblically taught doctrine.
A textbook theology as taught by various men, rather robotic.
It's like pushing the button of a programmable tape-recorder.
An immature childish attempt to keep a debate going doesn't work with me. Your opinion, which is wrong, is your opinion, and nothing more. And what you consider sound reasoning . . . isn't. And yes, we are done.
"Immature attempt"?? I'm trying to give you every opportunity to redeem yourself from your failure thus far.
My opinion is not what's wrong. It is your opinion of my reasoning and logic that is wrong. You offered none! You failed. You quit before you began. You lost. Your replies so far have been nothing but parroting of memorized myth defended and supported only by that same myth.
On the issues of perfection and imperfection, you (Mike) are probably correct in this part of your debate. I see no need for God to have the requirement to make an absolutely perfect being like himself who is incapable of imperfection just because he himself is perfect. If Gods intention is to create a world of potential free will, I see no concrete logical reason to say it isn't possible for God to create a being who is a 'perfect human' with all the limitations of humanity who still has the "potential for sin" which may be included in God's definition of a perfect human. Perfection can be a relative term depending on its usage so I think you are correct in this regard.
But you are thinking like a human and using words as a human uses them in the context of the human's imperfect, murky domain of ideas. To discuss terms describing God's characteristics it is necessary to use words rigorously and to avoid sloppiness and generalities.
Meditate on the answer to the question "what is perfection?" I trust that you will eventually see that what you just said is flawed human opinion and not the Truth of Spirit.
The problem here is that you don't know who I AM. All you see is a human. All you think is of a human. All you believe you have is of a human. Yet you believe you can know God with that.
Discover who I AM and discover your own perfection.
The next time a fundamentalist blowhard throws that argument your way simply neutralize it with this:
"What does it mean to commit a crime against someone? Does the essence of a crime not lie in harm? Not all harm done to a person rises to the standard of a crime, but it cannot be said that you have committed a crime against someone if they have not been harmed in any way. But God, by his nature, can never be harmed. According to the monotheistic religions, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect; he lacks nothing, he needs nothing, and certainly he cannot be injured or diminished in any way by anything a human being could ever do. Therefore, it is impossible to commit any crime against him at all, much less an infinite one. We may harm ourselves, or other people, but we can never harm God, and it defies justice to pay back an act that causes zero harm with an act that causes infinite harm."
There is no need to neutralize it, since the argument itself is unbiblical and violates principles taught in the Old Testament wheater eternal damnation were true or not.
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...but the claim that a single sin is justification for eternal torment in a universe where God made the rules...that's another story 
