Scientific proof that God exists?

[username18333]

Well, it has to be said, that there has been so much written from the 'christian' perspective, that one should wonder how on earth we survived the last 2000 years. So a guy worked miracles, yet there is no proof of these miracles. Christians attribute everything they say, to god, despite having no actual proof of the sucker.. I mean, c'mon, what was the actual point of god being born as Jesus just to show you what I, God, as Jesus, can do.. did he leave any hints that we could part the red sea? NO. Miracles? Prove them. No-one can, period. For if the Red sea was parted, the debris in the water would also be cast with the water to either side of the gap the people of exodus would have used to travel through.. 2000 years later the evidence of the red sea being parted would be VERY visible today, considering there is a mountain of bones from animals who had no 'business' being at the part of the planet where they (apparently) are not indigenous, and thousands of years older than the parting of a sea.. this is bollox

What I think most christians CANT accept, is that every non-christian see's christianity's excuse for everything is blame it on god. How many christians are following that madman obama? All of them.. but he's a muslim no? So America, wake up, you are no longer a christian entity, you are a nation of muslim killers, which is why the only support you have for the bombing of syria is from their local neighbours.

Just when you think christianity rules the world, you realise you are, like all masons and jews, about to be hounded out of existance, just so we (the seekers) dont need to hear about miracles that are impossible to comprehend, never mind prove.

CHRISTIAN churches everywhere with locked doors (no wonder) sitting on pagan ley lines, or intersections, which in turn are best viewed as spiral's. The very reason churches have steeples is to bring this spiral closer to the etheric vehicle known as aurora borealis, which is in fact the MAGNETISM which in turn becomes akasa which flows to the nerves and tissues.. hence the micro/macro-cosm.

I think christians should stop debating the pro's and cons of YOUR RELIGION, and start providing what the op requested, scientific proof, meaning, NO FUCKIN BIBLE SHEITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geez.  Relax dude.  The Bible is just a book of stories.  The Koran is also just a book of stories.  Why can't you (and others) simply enjoy the stories, take in the lessons learned, not read it LITERALLY and enjoy life.  Don't get so worked up.  Life is too short (unless your religion believes in reincarnation).  

People are afraid of what they don't know/understand and are reacting emotionally. Classic.

Show me a single person in this thread you can prove is all emotional, considering all you are reading is written by scripting bots.. just like the stock exchange..

Neither the whole nor that part you assume proves thus composed.

[1715279596]

1715279596

[bl4kjaguar]

Relax? Give christians a chance and they'll kill anything.. relax? I prefer books of facts.. like I said, why is it only bible bashers talking about their perspectives on their chosen books characters as if they actually existed?

Hey, you should PM me if you are interested in factual books.
Same goes for anyone else in this thread.

 

[Decksperiment]

Kl, thankls, but I've probably collected them all in the 90's before many were removed from online by google, which is no longer a search engine, but a shite catalouge of masonic/jewish brands..

Here's a very weird fact: The first rite of initiation was held in the pyramid 64.000 years ago, ok, I know, I said that several times. What is more interesting is the rite in question, is today claimed by freemasons as 'evidence' of their existance before even the bible, for they claim it is a masonic ritual, under the guise of the rite of mithras. But freemasons are gullible fools, who clearly believe that after their initiation into the mysteries, they are told the truth and nothing but..

Wait a minute.. if the rite of mithras is masonic, and the masons are older than the bible, how come all the masonic so called 'secret' passwords are all, incidently, from the bible?

Or is this where the (plethora of) bible(s) came from?

Now we're getting into territory that finally looks to preceding events we CAN trace, and with facts that can be found anywhere.. gimme dem factual books, but please omit the masonic ones, meaning written by anyone with their form of education.. or should that be elucidation lol..

[darkota]

God may exist, but the "god" of the religions we have throughout the world, does not. They differ so wildy in beliefs(polytheism, monotheism, etc and the people of those religion will all argue for theirs only. So that means, that the true God is either a collective of All religions on earth, or in none of the religions we have today)

Read this article....http://www.alternet.org/story/154774/the_top_10_reasons_i_don%27t_believe_in_god?page=0%2C3

500 years ago, everything "explained" by religion was false, and is now explained by science. (They believed earth was flat, geocentric model, etc)

500 years from now, everything that religious people believe as "miracles" or "fact", will be explained by science.



There's only one thing that can't be explained, and that's the origin of the universe itself. That's why I believe in an all encompassing being, "God", but definitely not the god of any religions known today, and they've all been proved wrong.

[Decksperiment]

God may exist, but the "god" of the religions we have throughout the world, does not. They differ so wildy in beliefs(polytheism, monotheism, etc and the people of those religion will all argue for theirs only. So that means, that the true God is either a collective of All religions on earth, or in none of the religions we have today)

Read this article....http://www.alternet.org/story/154774/the_top_10_reasons_i_don%27t_believe_in_god?page=0%2C3

500 years ago, everything "explained" by religion was false, and is now explained by science. (They believed earth was flat, geocentric model, etc)

500 years from now, everything that religious people believe as "miracles" or "fact", will be explained by science.



There's only one thing that can't be explained, and that's the origin of the universe itself. That's why I believe in an all encompassing being, "God", but definitely not the god of any religions known today, and they've all been proved wrong.

Oh fuck, there's someone who has the same albeit different (thank fuck) stand point I have.. ouch..

Totally agree with your last paragraph.. sorry i dont do external links from site's I visit, ya never know where they end up..

[BADecker]

God may exist, but the "god" of the religions we have throughout the world, does not. They differ so wildy in beliefs(polytheism, monotheism, etc and the people of those religion will all argue for theirs only. So that means, that the true God is either a collective of All religions on earth, or in none of the religions we have today)

Read this article....http://www.alternet.org/story/154774/the_top_10_reasons_i_don%27t_believe_in_god?page=0%2C3

500 years ago, everything "explained" by religion was false, and is now explained by science. (They believed earth was flat, geocentric model, etc)

500 years from now, everything that religious people believe as "miracles" or "fact", will be explained by science.



There's only one thing that can't be explained, and that's the origin of the universe itself. That's why I believe in an all encompassing being, "God", but definitely not the god of any religions known today, and they've all been proved wrong.

Oh fuck, there's someone who has the same albeit different (thank fuck) stand point I have.. ouch..

Totally agree with your last paragraph.. sorry i dont do external links from site's I visit, ya never know where they end up..

Yet the overall picture is more evidence that God exists. Why? Because people all over the world have gods. In other words, they realize that there is a God. They simply don't have the correct info about Him.

The first two chapters of the Bible may have been handed down right from Adam, who might have written them sometime within the first 930 years after the creation (creation 6,000 years ago; Adam's age at death > 930 years). If they weren't, they were originally written by someone who had recited the information, someone prior to Moses.

Back in those days, when the earth was young, people had good memories, easily a hundred times better than we generally have today. They didn't need books, because info could be passed down, father to son, in exact form, without making any mistakes. But as time went on, as entropy increased, and memories started to be more like they are today, God realized that the record would be lost. So He commissioned Moses to start the writing down of the basics of creation, the general history of the world up to the time of Moses, the beginnings of His favored people, the nation of Israel. Then others were commissioned with recording the history of Israel over the years after the time of Moses.

This whole Bible was written so that people would have a clearer picture of God, so that there would be a place that the nations of the world could go to find out about the God that they know exists, even though they don't know the details about Him. The same is true for the atheists. The atheists can go to the Bible to find out about the true God, rather than simply believing the false god that they believe in.

What!? I thought atheists were people who believe that there isn't any god. So how can you say that they believe in a god? Here's how. Without realizing what they have done, atheists have set their info up as something greater than God's info. This means that they are greater (at least in their own minds) than God. They have effectively set themselves up as god above the Great God Who created everything, simply by denying the truth. Because of this, atheists are some of the most miserable of all the false god believers. They don't even have a hazy picture of the god they believe in. The more primitive peoples at least have idols that they envision God to be like.

[Decksperiment]

Really sorry to say this BADecker, but the pyramid is over 64.000 years old. This itself kills all notions of the bible having any accuracy at all. Now if the bible was an analogy of a 'new' creation of an 'old' world order, or the one going out now kinda thing, then it may gain a bit strength, but the fact the sphinx is at least 10 times older than the pyramid.. I mean there are pyramids beneath japan's sea, that defy all claims made by any bible that creation was what, less than 10.000 years ago? Unacceptable to any decent thinker who has studied pyramids all over the world, albeit from a pc.. There are human remains that are far older too, so, for me, the bible is a load of croc, and dangerous at that.. I do accept there is some kinda guiding hand 'upstairs' that can be perceived in the guise of diety, but cannot accept any miracle claimed in the bible as being commited by one man.

Moses listening to a burnin bush, and even having a conversation with it.. people get locked up for that.. in truth the story of moses in a basket is the actual journey depicted over the land of egypt, I mentioned earlier in star maps.. Jesus coming back to life after 3 days of being dead. Twice. (crimbo and easter, same story)

I'd surprise many with the amount of knowledge I've gleaned from a book I've never read.. but then you'd have to go through the experience of dying to know that if you read a book, I do not need to, for the universal collective conciousnous in my opinion, is the evidence of that god. When I need information from the book you read, it will come to me as ordained by that god via the collective conciousnous or the ALL?

So I think it's safe to assume that we KNOW a DIETY exists of higher intelligence, that can create itself before anything else can ever exist, for if he is not himself created, then he cannot create, correct?

[Rassah]

Really sorry to say this BADecker, but the pyramid is over 64.000 years old.

Where the heck do you get this from?

There's only one thing that can't be explained, and that's the origin of the universe itself. That's why I believe in an all encompassing being, "God", but definitely not the god of any religions known today, and they've all been proved wrong.

Actually, it can, and has. We theorized that it popped into existence spontaneously. But then, how can you have something out of nothing? So we theorized that there must have been just as much matter as antimatter in the universe, so that if you sum it all together, it would still equal zero. The sum of the universe is nothing, we are just living on one part of it. Then by observing through telescopes, we found that, yep, there's about as much matter as antimatter in the universe. But then how can such a pop into existence just happen spontaneously? Is that even possible. Turns out, yep. when we were doing Large Hadron Collider experiments, we observed just those exact spontaneous pops into existence on a quantum level. Apparently these types of pops, and even black holes, are spontaneously popping into existence all around us constantly. It's just that since there is already a universe here, they quickly react with their surroundings and fizzle out. So pretty much everything about the origin of the universe was already deduced, and evidence for it observed, making the idea of "god" not even necessary for the universe's creation. Universe has all the mechanisms necessary to just create itself.

[BADecker]

Really sorry to say this BADecker, but the pyramid is over 64.000 years old.

Where the heck do you get this from?

There's only one thing that can't be explained, and that's the origin of the universe itself. That's why I believe in an all encompassing being, "God", but definitely not the god of any religions known today, and they've all been proved wrong.

Actually, it can, and has. We theorized that it popped into existence spontaneously. But then, how can you have something out of nothing? So we theorized that there must have been just as much matter as antimatter in the universe, so that if you sum it all together, it would still equal zero. The sum of the universe is nothing, we are just living on one part of it. Then by observing through telescopes, we found that, yep, there's about as much matter as antimatter in the universe. But then how can such a pop into existence just happen spontaneously? Is that even possible. Turns out, yep. when we were doing Large Hadron Collider experiments, we observed just those exact spontaneous pops into existence on a quantum level. Apparently these types of pops, and even black holes, are spontaneously popping into existence all around us constantly. It's just that since there is already a universe here, they quickly react with their surroundings and fizzle out. So pretty much everything about the origin of the universe was already deduced, and evidence for it observed, making the idea of "god" not even necessary for the universe's creation. Universe has all the mechanisms necessary to just create itself.

Matter and anti-matter are simply some infantile thinkings that scientists will grow out of if people happen to last for another 500 years.

[BADecker]

...

If we are discussing what is "unfair,"  isn't it unfair that Jesus, who was completely sinless and blameless, had to come to suffer for my sins?  I am the one that chose to sin but he paid the price for my sins.  Knowing that God, out of His great love for me, sent His only son to die for me?  That is unfair to God!  I should be paying the price for my own sins, but instead I am offered the greatest gift anyone could give to me, eternal life because of His love and the thing is that it is offered to everyone!  God is no respecter of persons. We are all welcome to His gift if we just accept it.

...

If God did not want to suffer for sins, he should not have deemed them such.

We can get frustrated at thy way God has chosen to do things, or we can accept that He has chosen to do things they way He has and respond with gratitude for even caring about us. Who are we to say how God, the creator of the universe, should or should not have done something?  It really is all about humility.  It is said that one of the greatest sins is actually pride.  This is because our own pride is what keeps us from even humbly coming to God and accepting Him at all.

So why is it unfair that god (Jesus) suffered for the thing he himself created? If I give you a gun, and you accidentally shoot and wound yourself, and then in turn I take my own gun and shoot myself in the foot, is it unfair that I ended up  getting shot because you got shot? And does that fix your wound? That whole "dying for our sins" thing makes no sense whatsoever. Just like blaming all the actions of murderers and rapists on a goat, taking the goat out of town, and killing it (a completely idiotic ancient practice that inspired the story of Jesus).

Actually, Jesus didn't suffer and die only for people. Mankind were originally given the authority for this universe. The universe is one; anything done on earth affects the whole thing. Jesus died to hold the whole universe in place. He could do it because He is God, the Son of God.

The underlying law that the whole universe is based on is, love God above all things. The second is love your neighbor as yourself. When God came as man in the form of Jesus, the only way to uphold the two great laws was to die. Why? Because mankind would have died from their breaking of the fundamental laws that hold the whole universe together. Why did Jesus rise in the resurrection? Because His love for God wouldn't allow the creation to be destroyed.

The most amazing miracle is that Jesus is God and man at the same time. Jesus has combined man and God, thereby making mankind into God along with God. Because of this, the two great laws - loving God above all things, and loving your neighbor as yourself - have taken on a whole new meaning. Man has become limitless because of the love of God.

The interesting thing is that God can do anything. Man as god, therefore, has the ability to deny his position as god. Atheists do this. They will be tossed into the lake of fire, simply because that is what they have will for themselves.

[BADecker]

Really sorry to say this BADecker, but the pyramid is over 64.000 years old.
...

I always knew Decky was a lot older than he let on.   

[username18333]

...

If we are discussing what is "unfair,"  isn't it unfair that Jesus, who was completely sinless and blameless, had to come to suffer for my sins?  I am the one that chose to sin but he paid the price for my sins.  Knowing that God, out of His great love for me, sent His only son to die for me?  That is unfair to God!  I should be paying the price for my own sins, but instead I am offered the greatest gift anyone could give to me, eternal life because of His love and the thing is that it is offered to everyone!  God is no respecter of persons. We are all welcome to His gift if we just accept it.

...

If God did not want to suffer for sins, he should not have deemed them such.

We can get frustrated at thy way God has chosen to do things, or we can accept that He has chosen to do things they way He has and respond with gratitude for even caring about us. Who are we to say how God, the creator of the universe, should or should not have done something?  It really is all about humility.  It is said that one of the greatest sins is actually pride.  This is because our own pride is what keeps us from even humbly coming to God and accepting Him at all.

So why is it unfair that god (Jesus) suffered for the thing he himself created? If I give you a gun, and you accidentally shoot and wound yourself, and then in turn I take my own gun and shoot myself in the foot, is it unfair that I ended up  getting shot because you got shot? And does that fix your wound? That whole "dying for our sins" thing makes no sense whatsoever. Just like blaming all the actions of murderers and rapists on a goat, taking the goat out of town, and killing it (a completely idiotic ancient practice that inspired the story of Jesus).

Actually, Jesus didn't suffer and die only for people. Mankind were originally given the authority for this universe. The universe is one; anything done on earth affects the whole thing. Jesus died to hold the whole universe in place. He could do it because He is God, the Son of God.

The underlying law that the whole universe is based on is, love God above all things. The second is love your neighbor as yourself. When God came as man in the form of Jesus, the only way to uphold the two great laws was to die. Why? Because mankind would have died from their breaking of the fundamental laws that hold the whole universe together. Why did Jesus rise in the resurrection? Because His love for God wouldn't allow the creation to be destroyed.

The most amazing miracle is that Jesus is God and man at the same time. Jesus has combined man and God, thereby making mankind into God along with God. Because of this, the two great laws - loving God above all things, and loving your neighbor as yourself - have taken on a whole new meaning. Man has become limitless because of the love of God.

The interesting thing is that God can do anything. Man as god, therefore, has the ability to deny his position as god. Atheists do this. They will be tossed into the lake of fire, simply because that is what they have will for themselves.

Christian gods cannot surmount theirself; however, "man" can. This, therefore, demonstrates "man", of the two, the more sensible (that is to ultimately say, "more entropic") entropy born of the fundamental tendency heralded by limakasidian entropism.

[BitChick]

...

If we are discussing what is "unfair,"  isn't it unfair that Jesus, who was completely sinless and blameless, had to come to suffer for my sins?  I am the one that chose to sin but he paid the price for my sins.  Knowing that God, out of His great love for me, sent His only son to die for me?  That is unfair to God!  I should be paying the price for my own sins, but instead I am offered the greatest gift anyone could give to me, eternal life because of His love and the thing is that it is offered to everyone!  God is no respecter of persons. We are all welcome to His gift if we just accept it.

...

If God did not want to suffer for sins, he should not have deemed them such.

We can get frustrated at thy way God has chosen to do things, or we can accept that He has chosen to do things they way He has and respond with gratitude for even caring about us. Who are we to say how God, the creator of the universe, should or should not have done something?  It really is all about humility.  It is said that one of the greatest sins is actually pride.  This is because our own pride is what keeps us from even humbly coming to God and accepting Him at all.

So why is it unfair that god (Jesus) suffered for the thing he himself created? If I give you a gun, and you accidentally shoot and wound yourself, and then in turn I take my own gun and shoot myself in the foot, is it unfair that I ended up  getting shot because you got shot? And does that fix your wound? That whole "dying for our sins" thing makes no sense whatsoever. Just like blaming all the actions of murderers and rapists on a goat, taking the goat out of town, and killing it (a completely idiotic ancient practice that inspired the story of Jesus).

Actually, Jesus didn't suffer and die only for people. Mankind were originally given the authority for this universe. The universe is one; anything done on earth affects the whole thing. Jesus died to hold the whole universe in place. He could do it because He is God, the Son of God.

The underlying law that the whole universe is based on is, love God above all things. The second is love your neighbor as yourself. When God came as man in the form of Jesus, the only way to uphold the two great laws was to die. Why? Because mankind would have died from their breaking of the fundamental laws that hold the whole universe together. Why did Jesus rise in the resurrection? Because His love for God wouldn't allow the creation to be destroyed.

The most amazing miracle is that Jesus is God and man at the same time. Jesus has combined man and God, thereby making mankind into God along with God. Because of this, the two great laws - loving God above all things, and loving your neighbor as yourself - have taken on a whole new meaning. Man has become limitless because of the love of God.

The interesting thing is that God can do anything. Man as god, therefore, has the ability to deny his position as god. Atheists do this. They will be tossed into the lake of fire, simply because that is what they have will for themselves.

Interesting.  I am not sure about the statement as "Man as god" though.  That seems a bit dangerous to go there.  We are made in His image, but we are not equal to God.  But I do like your description of Jesus being God and man at the same time.  It does cause an interesting spin on Loving God and your neighbor as yourself.

But that said, in response to Rassah, the reason it is "unfair" as I put it for God to suffer for our sins, is that it is kind of like a parent that has a child that makes a huge mistake, for example the child decides to play with matches and then burns the house down,  the parent will have to pay for that mistake even though it was not the parent's fault the house burned down.  So in a way it is unfair that the parent has to pay for the child's stupid decisions. (of course we have the choice to either allow God to pay for our mistakes or not unlike this analogy) I suppose God could have created us without the ability to make any mistakes but then we would have to have been created without a free will.  But it is our free will that sets us apart from God's other creation.  I think I wrote this before in one of the other threads, but I believe that God wanted to have a true relationship with His creation not because we have to serve Him, but because we choose to.  It is like if I put a magic ring on my spouse and He loved me because the ring forced Him too.  What if the magic ring made my husband do everything I wanted him to do for me.  It seems tempting. But at some point wouldn't I want to know if he really loved me?  I would want to take the ring off and see how he really feels.  God has removed the "magic ring" and we have the choice to try and know him or we can just do our own thing and reject him, or even say He doesn't exist.  But that said, there will come a day when we will be accountable of those choices we have made.  It doesn't matter if we don't believe in God or not.  Not believing in God does not then cause God to not exist.  Our belief has nothing to do with His existence.

[username18333]

...

If we are discussing what is "unfair,"  isn't it unfair that Jesus, who was completely sinless and blameless, had to come to suffer for my sins?  I am the one that chose to sin but he paid the price for my sins.  Knowing that God, out of His great love for me, sent His only son to die for me?  That is unfair to God!  I should be paying the price for my own sins, but instead I am offered the greatest gift anyone could give to me, eternal life because of His love and the thing is that it is offered to everyone!  God is no respecter of persons. We are all welcome to His gift if we just accept it.

...

If God did not want to suffer for sins, he should not have deemed them such.

We can get frustrated at thy way God has chosen to do things, or we can accept that He has chosen to do things they way He has and respond with gratitude for even caring about us. Who are we to say how God, the creator of the universe, should or should not have done something?  It really is all about humility.  It is said that one of the greatest sins is actually pride.  This is because our own pride is what keeps us from even humbly coming to God and accepting Him at all.

So why is it unfair that god (Jesus) suffered for the thing he himself created? If I give you a gun, and you accidentally shoot and wound yourself, and then in turn I take my own gun and shoot myself in the foot, is it unfair that I ended up  getting shot because you got shot? And does that fix your wound? That whole "dying for our sins" thing makes no sense whatsoever. Just like blaming all the actions of murderers and rapists on a goat, taking the goat out of town, and killing it (a completely idiotic ancient practice that inspired the story of Jesus).

Actually, Jesus didn't suffer and die only for people. Mankind were originally given the authority for this universe. The universe is one; anything done on earth affects the whole thing. Jesus died to hold the whole universe in place. He could do it because He is God, the Son of God.

The underlying law that the whole universe is based on is, love God above all things. The second is love your neighbor as yourself. When God came as man in the form of Jesus, the only way to uphold the two great laws was to die. Why? Because mankind would have died from their breaking of the fundamental laws that hold the whole universe together. Why did Jesus rise in the resurrection? Because His love for God wouldn't allow the creation to be destroyed.

The most amazing miracle is that Jesus is God and man at the same time. Jesus has combined man and God, thereby making mankind into God along with God. Because of this, the two great laws - loving God above all things, and loving your neighbor as yourself - have taken on a whole new meaning. Man has become limitless because of the love of God.

The interesting thing is that God can do anything. Man as god, therefore, has the ability to deny his position as god. Atheists do this. They will be tossed into the lake of fire, simply because that is what they have will for themselves.

Interesting.  I am not sure about the statement as "Man as god" though.  That seems a bit dangerous to go there.  We are made in His image, but we are not equal to God.  But I do like your description of Jesus being God and man at the same time.  It does cause an interesting spin on Loving God and your neighbor as yourself.

But that said, in response to Rassah, the reason it is "unfair" as I put it for God to suffer for our sins, is that it is kind of like a parent that has a child that makes a huge mistake, for example the child decides to play with matches and then burns the house down,  the parent will have to pay for that mistake even though it was not the parent's fault the house burned down.  So in a way it is unfair that the parent has to pay for the child's stupid decisions. (of course we have the choice to either allow God to pay for our mistakes or not unlike this analogy) I suppose God could have created us without the ability to make any mistakes but then we would have to have been created without a free will.  But it is our free will that sets us apart from God's other creation.  I think I wrote this before in one of the other threads, but I believe that God wanted to have a true relationship with His creation not because we have to serve Him, but because we choose to.  It is like if I put a magic ring on my spouse and He loved me because the ring forced Him too.  What if the magic ring made my husband do everything I wanted him to do for me.  It seems tempting. But at some point wouldn't I want to know if he really loved me?  I would want to take the ring off and see how he really feels.  God has removed the "magic ring" and we have the choice to try and know him or we can just do our own thing and reject him, or even say He doesn't exist.  But that said, there will come a day when we will be accountable of those choices we have made.  It doesn't matter if we don't believe in God or not.  Not believing in God does not then cause God to not exist.  Our belief has nothing to do with His existence.

Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.

a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.

b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to proceed about them in a manner unwanted but the child themself.

c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.

[BitChick]

Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.

a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.

b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.

c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.

My analogy isn't perfect.  I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.

But God isn't enabling us to sin.  He gave us free will to do so though.  Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong?  Should God have created us without that choice?  Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to.  But we have the ability to choose. 

[username18333]

Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.

a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.

b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.

c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.

My analogy isn't perfect.  I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.

But God isn't enabling us to sin.  He gave us free will to do so though.  Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong?  Should God have created us without that choice?  Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to.  But we have the ability to choose. 

Their deeds prove enablement for their foreknowledge.

[BitChick]

Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.

a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.

b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.

c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.

My analogy isn't perfect.  I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.

But God isn't enabling us to sin.  He gave us free will to do so though.  Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong?  Should God have created us without that choice?  Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to.  But we have the ability to choose. 

Their deeds prove enablement for their foreknowledge.

So are you saying that because God knew that man would sin, and that man's sins would cause damnation to hell without repentance, then God should not have even given man this choice?

[username18333]

Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.

a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.

b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.

c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.

My analogy isn't perfect.  I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.

But God isn't enabling us to sin.  He gave us free will to do so though.  Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong?  Should God have created us without that choice?  Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to.  But we have the ability to choose.  

Their deeds prove enablement for their foreknowledge.

So are you saying that because God knew that man would sin, and that man's sins would cause damnation to hell without repentance, then God should not have even given man this choice?

That post asserts that christian gods' provision of "free will" to their christians constitutes enablement for their bearing a knowledge of those transgressions upon theirself such provision would precipitate.

[BitChick]

Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.

a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.

b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.

c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.

My analogy isn't perfect.  I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.

But God isn't enabling us to sin.  He gave us free will to do so though.  Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong?  Should God have created us without that choice?  Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to.  But we have the ability to choose.  

Their deeds prove enablement for their foreknowledge.

So are you saying that because God knew that man would sin, and that man's sins would cause damnation to hell without repentance, then God should not have even given man this choice?

That post asserts that christian gods' provision of "free will" to their christians constitutes enablement for their bearing a knowledge of those transgressions upon theirself such provision would precipitate.

Was that yes?

I feel like I am back in college and trying to read a syllabus that is a bit too confusing. 

It isn't like I have never asked the question of why God even allows us to sin or gave that option to us to begin with, especially if he foreknew that men would do the things they do.  I guess what makes me sort of understand why He would do this, is because of His desire for us to really want to know Him because we choose to know Him.  With that freedom comes the pain and suffering we see.  Could we really choose God without having the choice to not choose Him?  There is the real question.  Then we could ask why God doesn't just hit the "smite" button on those that don't choose Him, or choose to hurt others, but then God is amazingly patient and will that everyone will choose to accept Him.  So it really is not a simple thing.  The gift of free will brings many issues along with it.

[username18333]

Yours is a weak analogy for the sake of scapegoating.

a. Christian gods granted to their respective christians that very thing they, in the determinations of these gods, destroyed within full knowledge of their inevitably proceeding to do so.

b. In the case of your analogy, it was not the parent that enabled the child to do what they believed to be damage to them, but the child themselves.

c. Indeed, within your analogy, you indemnify the parent of enable-ment, and place full fault upon their child.

My analogy isn't perfect.  I was just trying to come up with an example that gives an idea that God, out of love for us, would pay the price for our sins, kind of like a parent who really loves their child would want to do the same for their child if they had made a mistake.

But God isn't enabling us to sin.  He gave us free will to do so though.  Should we blame God for our ability to choose to do wrong?  Should God have created us without that choice?  Again, like I said above, God could have done that if He wanted to.  But we have the ability to choose. 

Their deeds prove enablement for their foreknowledge.

So are you saying that because God knew that man would sin, and that man's sins would cause damnation to hell without repentance, then God should not have even given man this choice?

That post asserts that christian gods' provision of "free will" to their christians constitutes enablement for their bearing a knowledge of those transgressions upon theirself such provision would precipitate.

Was that yes?

I feel like I am back in college and trying to read a syllabus that is a bit too confusing. 

It isn't like I have never asked the question of why God even allows us to sin or gave that option to us to begin with, especially if he foreknew that men would do the things they do.  I guess what makes me sort of understand why He would do this, is because of His desire for us to really want to know Him because we choose to know Him.  With that freedom comes the pain and suffering we see.  Could we really choose God without having the choice to not choose Him?  There is the real question.  Then we could ask why God doesn't just hit the "smite" button on those that don't choose Him, or choose to hurt others, but then God is amazingly patient and will that everyone will choose to accept Him.  So it really is not a simple thing.  The gift of free will brings many issues along with it.

> "Was that yes?"
Limakasidian entropism begets nihilism.


> "...why [christian gods] even allow [their respective christians] to [transgress upon theirself]..."
Their procession exceeds allowance.

For their knowledge of what proves hailed of a deed, they proceed about all deeds proving hailed of their own.