Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The "Out of Africa" theory is just that -- theory.

What about the "germ theory of disease"? Is it just that -- theory? Should we call it the "germ hypothesis of disease"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Is that your takeaway from what you "learned"?

Never mind your weak ad hominem. Is that interpretation correct or not?

[Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Another bad analogy. (You libs must be allergic to them!) When I said the "world" doesn't work the way Actor would have believe, I'm talking about reality as we actually KNOW it. I'm talking about life. You, on the other hand, are comparing life as we know it to what the world postulated was probably true -- from a scientific standpoint.

Now, if you can give us a few examples from LIFE whereby we humans are never held accountable for our choices, then go for it. (Infants and the mentally insane don't count.)

But to your credit, you are correct that humans are often wrong 'en masse" when it comes to things of science. Look how many believe in the evolution fiction.

You are clearly ready for shady palms. An analogy was not presented in my post.I asserted that people are often wrong en masse and provided "examples" to prove my assertion.The only thing that the populace's ignorance with respect to determinism proves is that the educational system is an abject failure.And that our "perception of reality" is often erroneous.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Never mind your weak ad hominem. Is that interpretation correct or not?

What did you "learn"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Hank

You are clearly ready for shady palms. An analogy was not presented in my post.

Box thinks everything is an analogy. I don't think he really knows what an analogy is.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What did you "learn"?

Red herring! What I posted in #7477 is correct.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

You are clearly ready for shady palms. An analogy was not presented in my post.I asserted that people are often wrong en masse and provided "examples" to prove my assertion.The only thing that the populace's ignorance with respect to determinism proves is that the educational system is an abject failure.And that our "perception of reality" is often erroneous.

Your analogy was implied. You were comparing what all people actually know about life through their everyday experiences to what people thought they knew about the physical world at one time.

Now, you dig a deeper hole for yourself with determinism. (It appears you are determined to make a fool of yourself, so maybe your fatal attraction to determinism is true after all. ) You now argue in a circle to wit: The people of the world are ignorant of determinism because of their ignorance (which you say is the fault of the education system). Cute.

Your personal "perception of reality" needs a lot of work.

Meanwhile, though...I'm still open to real world examples of when people don't presume that we all have the power of self-determination which accounts for how we all hold each other accountable for our choices. This applies across the spectrum of all human contact or relationships -- friends, relatives, acquaintances, spousal, professional, public office, private sector, workplace, etc.

Here's my perception of reality: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and water rolls off the critter's feathers like it would off a duck, then it's a duck. Prove me wrong.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Red herring! What I posted in #7477 is correct.

So, why did you ask me since you're so confident?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, why did you ask me since you're so confident?

Ask you what? I ask you a lot of things. You usually don't answer.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ask you what?

On top of all your other foibles you're senile, too? See TODAY'S 7484 and 87.

I ask you a lot of things. You usually don't answer.

If I don't answer, it's usually because your question is a non sequitur designed to take me down one of your rabbit trails. This is why I'm not answering your "germ theory" question either.

Have a nice night.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The "holes" and "contradictions" are figments of your imagination.

As far as this Christian knowing the script beforehand, there are Catholics here and other people who have vehemently disagreed with "my" script.

And believers have a "direct" connection with God through the indwelling Holy Spirit who will instruct them if they humble themselves and ask Him to do so.

Figments of my imagination? Then please explain why there are literally thousands of different flavors of Christianity, and why 1500 years after Christ died MAN, and not God, decides the faith needs a change in direction? A change, mind you, that results in half of Christians today being classified as Protestants. Please explain why only 1/3 of the world's population, at best, is Christian? Please explain why religion and Christianity are so often used to terrify and control, when the underlying message is supposed to be "Good News"?

If the terms "holes" and "contradictions" are not to your liking, what term(s) would you use to describe the problems with Christianity today? Or do you believe all is well with the Christian faith?

As for script, you seem to think I meant interpretation. What I intended to communicate is that very, very, very, why not many at all, few people pick up the Bible and become saved. I suppose it happens. But the ones I've observed were usually led by the nose by a PERSON, not the Holy Spirit, or they were exposed to Christianity and the concept of being saved long before the blessed event takes place. This of course doesn't mean it's not an actual process, but there is significant confirmation (pun intended) bias involved. In other words, playing to the script.

Ask yourself this question, Boxcar. When did you first hear about Jesus? Reading the Bible, or being exposed to it through dogmatic practice by HUMANs?

I will not dispute that there are those that claim a direct connection with God, and have repeated experiences with that. However, this phenomena appears to be limited in scope to a fraction of the world's inhabitants, which again sets the table for intermediation by another PERSON in achieving a relationship with God. And if humility is required for one to experience indwelling of the Holy Spirit - why that opens up the mystery of how, in the World, did you come to experience it?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

On top of all your other foibles you're senile, too?

Ad hominem!

Originally Posted by boxcar

If I don't answer, it's usually because ...

What's your excuse for the other 99% ?

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm not answering your "germ theory" question either.

One of your strategies has always been to just ignore the tough questions.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Have a nice night.

I plan to. I'll be watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos and reading a bit of Nietzsche.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The mess is a result of your own mind. Revelation 20 presents no problems.

I am still waiting for you to explain how an omniscient deity giving his children "free will" is not responsible for their poor choices for ever and ever.

Omniscient means your deity knows what will happen. From the beginning to the end of time.

An omnipotent deity is RESPONSIBLE for what will happen. From the beginning to the end of time.

I said:

However since as you told us, god created all of creation including AND cursing the world with evil, god is still responsible for....

1-Not understanding his "gift" of free will was never a gift
2-Mankind's fall and burden of original sin was gods own doing.

Mankind can not be held accountable. All actions are limited by the god created "rules" and inabilities he inherited from his incompetent creator

Therefore your incompetent deity must be held accountable.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am still waiting for you to explain how an omniscient deity giving his children "free will" is not responsible for their poor choices for ever and ever.

Omniscient means your deity knows what will happen. From the beginning to the end of time.

An omnipotent deity is RESPONSIBLE for what will happen. From the beginning to the end of time.

I said:

However since as you told us, god created all of creation including AND cursing the world with evil, god is still responsible for....

1-Not understanding his "gift" of free will was never a gift
2-Mankind's fall and burden of original sin was gods own doing.

Mankind can not be held accountable. All actions are limited by the god created "rules" and inabilities he inherited from his incompetent creator

Therefore your incompetent deity must be held accountable.

Why isn't God responsible for our choices? Maybe because He doesn't make them for us?

Further, if God is responsible for all his imagers' choices, then wouldn't God also get the credit for all the myriads and myriads of angels who have never sinned and for Christ's perfect, sinless life?

You're also overlooking the fact that God has provided mankind a remedy for sin in Christ -- a remedy that you freely choose to reject. So, on the last day when you stand before the Judge of all heaven and earth, what excuse will you offer? Will you blame God for not twisting your arm to force you to repent of your sins and believe the Gospel?

And you still haven't told us, O Whiner, what your alternative would been at creation if you were God. Would you have created mindless, programmed machines or would you have been a tyrannical, despot who would have forced all people to bend to your will? Which of the two would you have been?

Or looking at this from another perspective, which of the above two classes of entities would you prefer to be under God right this very moment? Would you prefer to be a programmed, mindless, soulless machine or a slave in bondage forever, always under compulsion to do the irresistible will of your Master and Creator, even when you don't want to do so?

Pick your poison.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ad hominem!

What's your excuse for the other 99% ?

One of your strategies has always been to just ignore the tough questions.

I plan to. I'll be watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos and reading a bit of Nietzsche.

I'm a top 1 Percenter, dear sir. (After all, cream always rises to the top. ) The 99%, therefore, is all your nonsense.

The "ad hominem" you deserved when you asked a downright stupid question. I could only surmise that you must be senile in order to ask that kind of question.

Sagan and Nietzsche, heh? Mr. Hades and Mr. Second Death. Quite a "winning" pair those two. Do they ever try to outdo each other to see who can tell the most lies?