|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 31, 2010 17:24:46 GMT -5
Semantics and constructs may allow us to make an argument that Adam and Eve weren't told the whole truth, but if you follow the idea to it's logical extension we are forced to conclude that no one has EVER been told the whole truth by anyone. In part because, setting it up as you have, the individual decides what is and isn't pertinent retroactively for everyone else based on THEIR perspective. If you ask me what my screen name is, and I say Damie, it is entirely up for you to decide later on that the right answer was actually DamieQue. You chose the context and facts that were pertinent according to you. It seems to me, that you are suggesting no different here. You are deciding that certain things are pertinent AFTER the fact, NONE of which changes the truth of what God said at the beginning. Literally and metaphorically, death followed after their disobedience. Not even the most flawed reading of the Bible can refute it.
Now - as to your comments about information - the root of misinformation is still information isn't it? So when you ask don't I like to have as much information as my disposal as possible I say no - I want accurate information. There was PLENTY of information available to people about Health Care Reform... how much of it was accurate? Merely presenting thoughts, ideas, words, or even bits and bytes and zeros and ones doesn't mean one has presented or transmitted the truth. What the Serpent added was misinformation - plain and simple. The text is quite clear. And that brings me to another point of contention... who defines what the whole truth is?
Did the Alphas tell you everything they knew when you were still a prospect? Were they under any obligation to do so? Was there even a "truth" for you to be given outside of what they said? Did they hide the truth from you or did they simply not mention things that weren't your concern?
As far as flaw and perfection... the concepts themselves are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive, however in your context one is merely a description of the effectiveness of a planned disruption, and the other is the disruption itself. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not your conversion of fairly well defined concepts into euphemisms results in a compelling argument, in this instance I would say it does not (at least not for me). Perfect and effective are not synonymous, neither are flaws and plans.
Finally - I for one, do not feel as though the one who intended to deceive should be given credit for any positive outcome that happened DESPITE their deception. That shouldn't require any additional explanation. Again can you show how Satan deceived? He said they would be Gods to know good and evil and the God of the bible confirms it. Soooo where is the deception? The key to living forever is eating from the Tree of Life. The "God" blocks the tree of life with cherbuims and a flaming sword because of man's knowledge. Man was gonna die anyway. Man was already tilling the ground anyway. So the "punishments" were already in place but since Adam was ignorant he didn't understand. No matter how you turn it... Satan gave woman and man knowledge per the story.
The fact is, death follows their disobedience as God said would happen (whether you choose a metaphoric or a literal framework). As for the deception?
Genesis 3
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
It's really open and shut. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Mar 31, 2010 20:22:52 GMT -5
Semantics and constructs may allow us to make an argument that Adam and Eve weren't told the whole truth, but if you follow the idea to it's logical extension we are forced to conclude that no one has EVER been told the whole truth by anyone. In part because, setting it up as you have, the individual decides what is and isn't pertinent retroactively for everyone else based on THEIR perspective. If you ask me what my screen name is, and I say Damie, it is entirely up for you to decide later on that the right answer was actually DamieQue. You chose the context and facts that were pertinent according to you. It seems to me, that you are suggesting no different here. You are deciding that certain things are pertinent AFTER the fact, NONE of which changes the truth of what God said at the beginning. Literally and metaphorically, death followed after their disobedience. Not even the most flawed reading of the Bible can refute it. For the most part...but would the serpent have been as influential if he didn't share some new aspect of the fruit that seemed good and was somewhat accurate? I mean Adam and Eve talked to God before in the cool of the evening, right? Wouldn't there have been plenty of opportunities to share the tidbit about god-like knowledge, but also state his case as to why choosing to have that knowledge and death was inferior to the state they were in currently? Or at least set the table and let them decide why? Now - as to your comments about information - the root of misinformation is still information isn't it? So when you ask don't I like to have as much information as my disposal as possible I say no - I want accurate information. There was PLENTY of information available to people about Health Care Reform... how much of it was accurate? Merely presenting thoughts, ideas, words, or even bits and bytes and zeros and ones doesn't mean one has presented or transmitted the truth. What the Serpent added was misinformation - plain and simple. The text is quite clear. And that brings me to another point of contention... who defines what the whole truth is? Did the Alphas tell you everything they knew when you were still a prospect? Were they under any obligation to do so? Was there even a "truth" for you to be given outside of what they said? Did they hide the truth from you or did they simply not mention things that weren't your concern? As far as flaw and perfection... the concepts themselves are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive, however in your context one is merely a description of the effectiveness of a planned disruption, and the other is the disruption itself. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not your conversion of fairly well defined concepts into euphemisms results in a compelling argument, in this instance I would say it does not (at least not for me). Perfect and effective are not synonymous, neither are flaws and plans. Finally - I for one, do not feel as though the one who intended to deceive should be given credit for any positive outcome that happened DESPITE their deception. That shouldn't require any additional explanation. [/color][/quote] I see your point, but isn't the work of the serpent responsible for the need for Jesus to come? Isn't that a good thing? |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 1, 2010 10:13:19 GMT -5
Again can you show how Satan deceived? He said they would be Gods to know good and evil and the God of the bible confirms it. Soooo where is the deception? The key to living forever is eating from the Tree of Life. The "God" blocks the tree of life with cherbuims and a flaming sword because of man's knowledge. Man was gonna die anyway. Man was already tilling the ground anyway. So the "punishments" were already in place but since Adam was ignorant he didn't understand. No matter how you turn it... Satan gave woman and man knowledge per the story.
The fact is, death follows their disobedience as God said would happen (whether you choose a metaphoric or a literal framework). As for the deception?
Genesis 3
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
It's really open and shut.I call romanticism. Where is this metaphoric point of death raised? It was simple "God" stated if you eat from the tree you will die. Period. The Serpent said "God" was lying and knew they would be as God's to know good and evil. "God" confirms this to be true. So this negates Eve notion she was deceived. Notice "God" didn't tell them they were now as God's he gave them what they thought was a punishment. How would Eve know she was spared the pains of childbirth beforehand if she had not given birth yet? Adam was made to till the ground and dress the Garden in the beginning so thorns, thistles, and sweat conversation is null because he was already doing that. Furthermore neither of them had taken of the tree of life which is needed to live forever so they were going to die anyway. All of the punishments of "God" were already in place. That's like someone being enslaved and not realizing they are enslaved. When they come into awareness the slave master gives them a punishment of being a slave acting as IF they were not already in that state. Man as per the story were robbed of their free will to have knowledge with a lie. The Serpent fixed that. The "God" confirms that. Then man is robbed of his free will to have eternal life with having the tree of life guarded with cheribiums and a flaming sword. Basically no matter what ya think the "God" is coming off like a man himself. If we can see a lie here what else is the God lying about? If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.... who are the people in the Land of Nod? Who is Cain afraid of that will kill him for slaying his brother? Who are the God of those people? |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Apr 1, 2010 11:12:30 GMT -5
I'm sorry I missed this conversation. Seems too late to jump in now, but I would've had much (usefulness debatable) to add though. Thanks for the reading!
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 1, 2010 12:59:21 GMT -5
They already knew that the tree was of knowledge of good and evil... God told them. God was under no obligation to explain anymore than He already had. In my mind's eye it's not about what He had time to share. The directive was to NOT eat. No additional information is necessary in order to comply. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that if they had asked Him why that He wouldn't have told them - in fact the Bible is rife with examples of God answering questions. How many questions did Jesus field in his lifetime? I don't know why the assumption seems to be that just because God gives directives that do not require explanations, that He's unwilling to answer questions.
Luke 9:11
So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
The seprent deserves credit for Jesus, like an arsonist deserves credit for a Fireman saving a child from a burning building. I don't think you can decouple intent from resultant in this case. The serpent's goal isn't to bring about Jesus, it is simply something that resulted by way of his deception. It's a good thing that God loved us, but He loved us BEFORE the serpent. Can't give the serpent credit for what already existed.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 1, 2010 13:02:55 GMT -5
I said very early on what the death alluded to but the "literal death" argument was entertained just to show then in no sense could it be said that God lied. I know that Eve didn't eat from the Tree of Life, I raised this point in proving the literal case that the serpent lied.
The fact is, death follows their disobedience as God said would happen (whether you choose a metaphoric or a literal framework). As for the deception?
Genesis 3
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
It's really open and shut. I call romanticism. Where is this metaphoric point of death raised? It was simple "God" stated if you eat from the tree you will die. Period. The Serpent said "God" was lying and knew they would be as God's to know good and evil. "God" confirms this to be true. So this negates Eve notion she was deceived. Notice "God" didn't tell them they were now as God's he gave them what they thought was a punishment. How would Eve know she was spared the pains of childbirth beforehand if she had not given birth yet? Adam was made to till the ground and dress the Garden in the beginning so thorns, thistles, and sweat conversation is null because he was already doing that. Furthermore neither of them had taken of the tree of life which is needed to live forever so they were going to die anyway. All of the punishments of "God" were already in place. That's like someone being enslaved and not realizing they are enslaved. When they come into awareness the slave master gives them a punishment of being a slave acting as IF they were not already in that state. Man as per the story were robbed of their free will to have knowledge with a lie. The Serpent fixed that. The "God" confirms that. Then man is robbed of his free will to have eternal life with having the tree of life guarded with cheribiums and a flaming sword. Basically no matter what ya think the "God" is coming off like a man himself. If we can see a lie here what else is the God lying about? If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.... who are the people in the Land of Nod? Who is Cain afraid of that will kill him for slaying his brother? Who are the God of those people?
It's quaint to now assume that they were going to die anyway. In reality, speculation produces many unexplored paths doesn't it? Who's to say that if they had not eaten of the tree of knowledge that God would not allow them to eat of the Tree of Life? He never put that off limits did He? In fact, until they eat of the Tree of Knowledge the Tree of Life is never mentioned as being off limits is it? Your speculation makes for good debate fodder, but not necessarily for good argument. We can all speculate about what could have happened. But we can't argue what the text SAYS happened. They are forbidden from eating from the Tree of Life AFTER eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So we know they experience physical death. They are also put out of God's presence, and require Jesus to overcome spiritual death. In any framework you look at... they experience death that the Serpent said would not happen... Q.E.D. the serpent lied.
As for the rest, I got nothing. I can't argue with you about things you don't seem to understand. It would be like arguing with GDIs about the esoteric aspect of a frat - there is no point. I mean when I read this: "man is robbed of his free will to have eternal life" - it is such an obviously flawed statement from a Christian persepctive (on so many levels) it's not even necessary to refute it. The most uninformed Christian knows better. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 1, 2010 17:12:38 GMT -5
I call romanticism. Where is this metaphoric point of death raised? It was simple "God" stated if you eat from the tree you will die. Period. The Serpent said "God" was lying and knew they would be as God's to know good and evil. "God" confirms this to be true. So this negates Eve notion she was deceived. Notice "God" didn't tell them they were now as God's he gave them what they thought was a punishment. How would Eve know she was spared the pains of childbirth beforehand if she had not given birth yet? Adam was made to till the ground and dress the Garden in the beginning so thorns, thistles, and sweat conversation is null because he was already doing that. Furthermore neither of them had taken of the tree of life which is needed to live forever so they were going to die anyway. All of the punishments of "God" were already in place. That's like someone being enslaved and not realizing they are enslaved. When they come into awareness the slave master gives them a punishment of being a slave acting as IF they were not already in that state. Man as per the story were robbed of their free will to have knowledge with a lie. The Serpent fixed that. The "God" confirms that. Then man is robbed of his free will to have eternal life with having the tree of life guarded with cheribiums and a flaming sword. Basically no matter what ya think the "God" is coming off like a man himself. If we can see a lie here what else is the God lying about? If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.... who are the people in the Land of Nod? Who is Cain afraid of that will kill him for slaying his brother? Who are the God of those people?
It's quaint to now assume that they were going to die anyway. In reality, speculation produces many unexplored paths doesn't it? Who's to say that if they had not eaten of the tree of knowledge that God would not allow them to eat of the Tree of Life? He never put that off limits did He? In fact, until they eat of the Tree of Knowledge the Tree of Life is never mentioned as being off limits is it? Your speculation makes for good debate fodder, but not necessarily for good argument. We can all speculate about what could have happened. But we can't argue what the text SAYS happened. They are forbidden from eating from the Tree of Life AFTER eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So we know they experience physical death. They are also put out of God's presence, and require Jesus to overcome spiritual death. In any framework you look at... they experience death that the Serpent said would not happen... Q.E.D. the serpent lied.
As for the rest, I got nothing. I can't argue with you about things you don't seem to understand. It would be like arguing with GDIs about the esoteric aspect of a frat - there is no point. I mean when I read this: "man is robbed of his free will to have eternal life" - it is such an obviously flawed statement from a Christian persepctive (on so many levels) it's not even necessary to refute it. The most uninformed Christian knows better.Are you serious? Damie is there not only one way to eternal life in Christianity? If only given one choice is that free will? Free will are actions done FREE from constraints. Can a non believer have eternal life Damie? If one doesn't believe are they not banished to hell? Is that Free Will Damie? You're romanticizing again. Either that or you have not an understanding of what free will is. If man truly had Free Will then he could have eternal life by whatever means he wanted. Period. Satan per the story gave man knowledge no matter what you try to say its plain. Satan attempted to give man Free Will which he did for a moment. The God affirmed that man had become as a God and out of FEAR (lack of control) he robs man of his free will to have the tree of life. He knew if the tree of life wasn't blocked man would partake it. Now if this guy is "God" why not have the power to stop what he made without using swords and cheribuims? I mean he is God right? That's like me seeing I'm God to some youngsters but yet and still I have to but an alarm on my whip to stop them from stealing it. lol The tree of life didn't need protection before hand because Adam and Eve were ignorant and didn't know what it was. Again the "God" of the story affirms this notion. It's like you wanna preach but I'm using the story verbatim. You gotta step outside them sermons team . You have to step outside what you were taught as a child. I mean I could refute your notions with verses but why do that and watch you abandon the bible again.... |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 1, 2010 17:52:27 GMT -5
Okay you call romanticism... I'm calling revisionism. The metaphoric death was mentioned early on (in my argument), however if you are asking about the text, it's actually IN the Bible... but I digress. God said they would die, and regardless of which framework you choose to argue, they experienced death. The serpent said they would not. Eve herself SAID she was deceived by the serpent. It simply cannot be argued that the Serpent didn't deceive and didn't lie.
It's quaint to now assume that they were going to die anyway. In reality, speculation produces many unexplored paths doesn't it? Who's to say that if they had not eaten of the tree of knowledge that God would not allow them to eat of the Tree of Life? He never put that off limits did He? In fact, until they eat of the Tree of Knowledge the Tree of Life is never mentioned as being off limits is it? Your speculation makes for good debate fodder, but not necessarily for good argument. We can all speculate about what could have happened. But we can't argue what the text SAYS happened. They are forbidden from eating from the Tree of Life AFTER eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So we know they experience physical death. They are also put out of God's presence, and require Jesus to overcome spiritual death. In any framework you look at... they experience death that the Serpent said would not happen... Q.E.D. the serpent lied.
As for the rest, I got nothing. I can't argue with you about things you don't seem to understand. It would be like arguing with GDIs about the esoteric aspect of a frat - there is no point. I mean when I read this: "man is robbed of his free will to have eternal life" - it is such an obviously flawed statement from a Christian persepctive (on so many levels) it's not even necessary to refute it. The most uninformed Christian knows better. Are you serious? Damie is there not only one way to eternal life in Christianity? If only given one choice is that free will? Free will are actions done FREE from constraints.
...everywhere but here. Here you seem to embrace the most skewed and virtually indefensible positions that, are often so obviously contrary and misplaced that they are virtually incandescent to the casual observer. And it's not unbelief that is confusing me, it's the basis on which you stage that unbelief that leaves alot to be desired. Team, none of these arguments you have tried have closed. None of them. Doesn't that give you pause at all? Serious question not even a jab - just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 1, 2010 18:45:55 GMT -5
No, it is not. I'm trying to meet you halfway but what you're saying is just flat out inaccurate. And that's why I'm not really arguing with you about any points related to it. Wait are you stating its more than one way to eternal life in Christianity? I'm trying to follow you here. Or are you saying if given only one choice that's not free will? If you answered yes to the second question then why are we having this discussion? This is what I'm talking about. You really think this notion makes sense? Question would I be exercising my "free will" if I didn't show my detest for your faith? Did that ever cross your mind? Just as you have a right to be a Christian do I also have the equal right to voice my dissent? If you agree then why ask that question? Furthermore on a particle level even though you state people used Christianity in the wrong way OUR ancestors died under this bullchit bruh. When you look at the book by the letter it has condoned everything they have done to us. The passover is about killing black babies WHICH NEVER HAPPENED. The Open enemies in this book are the Ethiopians and Kemetians. Portrayed them as heathens, bastards and evil doers. Think about that this Sunday while you are celebrating Easter. The confirmation of the Passover. Blood ritual about killing black male men, children, and babies who were first born. I'm sure you will refute that as well but you have to understand your disagreement means nothing in the face of truth. How is it not. Again you are becoming ignorant to what was written and want to preach. He states verbatim. Genesis 1:22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.This shows a fearful, selfish, embarrassed man. Furthermore can you tell me about these people Cain was afraid of? These heathens who mind you were sane enough to put to death a man for killing his own brother but your "God" choose not and put a mark on him instead. WHO was he protecting Cain from Damie IF Adam and Eve were the first man and woman on earth? smdh How can it be speculative when again your god states verbatim>> 22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So this shows after the knowledge what man would seek. I guess your God was speculating huh? Junk analysis again are you serious? Anyone who reads this objectively can clearly see when I back you in a corner with Verses you attempt to preach and bring forth sermons. Again who gave man knowledge per the story? Did your God give Adam and Eve the knowledge of Good and Evil? Furthermore if having this knowledge was soooo bad... Why is it okay for "God" to have it? Why was it wrong for man to become as "God's"? I offer plausible questions and your bring forth sermons and irrelevant conjecture. You refuse to answer these questions. Your arguments are only relevant because of your audience. I have asked legitimate questions and when shown you are unable to answer them OR don't like what the answer implies you attempt to say well "He doesn't understand Christianity blah blah" . Your blind faith has you in prison. No way you would believe this bullchit if the framework existed in any other setting. It's a tough pill to swallow understanding this is a lie and you were lied to your entire life. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 2, 2010 11:02:32 GMT -5
No I am saying that Free Will is not actions done free of constraint. I say free will isn't an action at all. Action RESULTS from having a choice; THAT is free will. And to be clear, free will isn't the ability to have ANY or EVERY choice, it's the ability TO choose when A choice is available - there are ALWAYS constraints in life - in some cases they are erected BY our own previous choices. And whether it's the laws of the state or the laws of physics, there are some choices that are just not available to us... it doesn't negate the fact that we have free will.
Negative. Free will allows you the choice to criticize or not... but free will is not the act of criticzing itself... and that's not the question anyway. I'm not inquirying if you have the ability to choose to criticize, I'm asking if you believe this:
If man truly had Free Will then he could have eternal life by whatever means he wanted. Period.
then WHY are you criticizing? Stop obfuscating
You are characterizing to an extreme to fit your narrative - not the truth. If someone said that Bruhz are criminals miscreants, who are ignorant, foolish, and college drop outs they could probably find a handful of people that fit this description. would it be fair to say that this is what the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Inc. is? Of course not, that would be (pause) characterizing to the extreme... you know it's not a viable approach... anymore than saying that if a car is used in a bank robbery, than all automobiles are evil. It simply lacks any merit as an argument.
Just FYI the Bible verse you quoted isn't Genesis 1:22 it's Genesis 2:21
In any event, the problem with filibusters is that we all know their intent... they're designed to AVOID the true topic. It's as obvious on the Senate floor as it is on a messageboard. Going on a long irrelevant spree and changing topics will not obscure your gaffe. Let me refocus the conversation - prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the Tree of Life off limits? The answer is no. Here's the text:
Genesis 2:15
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
So are you now ready to admit the Serpent lied? That's what this all comes back to. Your newest argument, to avoid admitting the serpent lied, was to assert that Adam and Eve were going to die anyway remember?
But the Tree of Life wasn't off limits was it? It's right there in the text. It was only AFTER they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that they were banned from eating fruit from the Tree of Life. And since prohibition of taking from the Tree of Life leads to physical death (even by your own acknowledgement) - Adam and Eve will now die. And who said they would die if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? God. Who said they wouldn't? The serpent. So who lied? Again there is not much to debate here.
Yes - junk analysis. Anyone who reads this objectively can clearly see that you have a playbook. You modify, if not all together, abandon your arguments and change topics when can't defend your positions. In just this thread you went from arguing that Eve lived for ever, to the position that Adam and Eve were going to die anyway without ever once acknowledging that the two positions are contradictory to one another. And when you aren't busy changing your own position, you're changing the position of your opponent; assigning them credit for arguments that they never actually made. It's the same 2 part attack every time.
LOL - yeah you ask questions... you are especially inquisitive, it seems, when you're attempting to change the subject to avoid answering critiques of your position that you can't explain. I mean you're doing it right now... right here in this very thread. We're discussing the topic of did the Serpent lie or did God lie, and what do you want to ask? "if having this knowledge was soooo bad... Why is it okay for "God" to have it?". And if that's not enough, you strap on that rocket booster and launch for the peak of Mount St. Ridiculous and claim it's everyone else who won't answer YOUR questions? LOL... come on man. You are deflecting. Did the serpent lie or not? You don't get a pass on answering the question by asking a different unrelated question. You frequently say you know the Bible and Christianity better than Christians but you never can seem to defend your positions and hypotheses. From Immortal Eve to Son of Man Isaiah... you seem to keep coming up on the wrong side of these discussions... why do you think that is? You can't blame the audience for the bad logic structure of your own arguments... you're the one that's making them
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 2, 2010 13:04:32 GMT -5
No I am saying that Free Will is not actions done free of constraint. I say free will isn't an action at all. Action RESULTS from having a choice; THAT is free will. And to be clear, free will isn't the ability to have ANY or EVERY choice, it's the ability TO choose when A choice is available - there are ALWAYS constraints in life - in some cases they are erected BY our own previous choices. And whether it's the laws of the state or the laws of physics, there are some choices that are just not available to us... it doesn't negate the fact that we have free will.By the definition free will is stated to be the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
Moving on.... I want you to read slowllly what was typed above. Damie if you are free to believe I'm also free not to believe. If you are free to affirm I am also free to dissent. If you choose to put your faith and beliefs in a PUBLIC FORUM then I can basically do what I want on my end as well. You're being selfish and self centered. I guess thats the Christian Way.. shrugs. Basically you want all others to be quiet because they don't believe what you believe...lol Don't hold your breath on that one. This is twice you have put the frat in this. I won't speak further on that.. Irrelevant to you doesn't mean it's irrelevant. You're being selfish and self centered again. I don't agree either debate it or show some restraint and say nothing. It's simple. Naw its simple. "God" says if you eat from the tree you will surely die. "Satan" says he is lying because he knows man will be as God's to know good and evil. "God" CONFIRMS that man has become as God "God" then thinks Man will also try to partake from the tree of life and live forever "God" then blocks the tree Stop preaching and ask yourself...... Why didn't God have the notion beforehand that Man would attempt to partake in the Tree of Life? Simple Logic Here. No the Serpent didn't lie because they became as God's and your God confirmed it Yes Man and Woman were already damned to death per the story because they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Life. No Eve isn't shown to die Yes Your God is shown beforehand stating htey could eat from EVERY tree Yes it is later shown they couldn't eat from the Tree of Good and Evil. These are contradictions in your faith not my logic. Nice try Stop preaching and ask yourself...... Why didn't God have the notion beforehand that Man would attempt to partake in the Tree of Life? Simple Logic Here. Hell the Tree of Good and Evil wasn't off limits either? More contradictions on your religious text not me. So because I have to navigate through this minefield of contradictions you call a religion and truth my arguments like Merit? Look what the hell I'm working with here lol. Yes Per the story Man was going to Die anyway. Yes Per the story Eve is Never shown to die Yes Per the story Satan gives Man and Woman the platform to obtain Knowledge Yes Per the Story it is shown he who gave Knowledge to Man as evil Yes Per the story it is shown Adam and Eve to be the first Man and Woman Yes Per the story Cain is fearful for his Life from other People outside of the Eden The bible is a contradiction. So lets make it plain I think it's total falsehood. If I choose to step within the conversation then I must use what was written to formulate an argument. Showing me raising points that are in contradiction to one another is an indication of the shortfalls with this religion not my arguments. An Example I can argue Man and Woman were given every right to eat from any tree they chose to. I can also show a separate argument where Satan gives man Knowledge by providing Man and Woman the platform to think by showing the "God" was lying. Is that a contradiction on my part or on your religious text? Nice try Again [/color][/quote] Because you don't answer questions so I have to ask more questions of you. For example.... I have asked you twice about these other people that Cain feared. Ya think the objective thinker hasn't noticed this question has went unanswered? The objective thinker says to them self " How can Damie state thats irrelevant if VP is saying "God" is lying? You do this allllllll the time. If I'm raising the different aspects of your faith that shows gross contradictions how can that be placed in my lap stating my arguments lack merit? Again nice try. I mean you can do as you choose but the true objective thinker isn't buying it. Again your reasoning is only logical because of your audience that agrees with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Apr 2, 2010 13:54:33 GMT -5
No I am saying that Free Will is not actions done free of constraint. I say free will isn't an action at all. Action RESULTS from having a choice; THAT is free will. And to be clear, free will isn't the ability to have ANY or EVERY choice, it's the ability TO choose when A choice is available - there are ALWAYS constraints in life - in some cases they are erected BY our own previous choices. And whether it's the laws of the state or the laws of physics, there are some choices that are just not available to us... it doesn't negate the fact that we have free will.By the definition free will is stated to be the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
Moving on.... I want you to read slowllly what was typed above. Damie if you are free to believe I'm also free not to believe. If you are free to affirm I am also free to dissent. If you choose to put your faith and beliefs in a PUBLIC FORUM then I can basically do what I want on my end as well. You're being selfish and self centered. I guess thats the Christian Way.. shrugs. Basically you want all others to be quiet because they don't believe what you believe...lol Don't hold your breath on that one. This is twice you have put the frat in this. I won't speak further on that.. Irrelevant to you doesn't mean it's irrelevant. You're being selfish and self centered again. I don't agree either debate it or show some restraint and say nothing. It's simple. Naw its simple. "God" says if you eat from the tree you will surely die. "Satan" says he is lying because he knows man will be as God's to know good and evil. "God" CONFIRMS that man has become as God "God" then thinks Man will also try to partake from the tree of life and live forever "God" then blocks the tree Stop preaching and ask yourself...... Why didn't God have the notion beforehand that Man would attempt to partake in the Tree of Life? Simple Logic Here. No the Serpent didn't lie because they became as God's and your God confirmed it Yes Man and Woman were already damned to death per the story because they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Life. No Eve isn't shown to die Yes Your God is shown beforehand stating htey could eat from EVERY tree Yes it is later shown they couldn't eat from the Tree of Good and Evil. These are contradictions in your faith not my logic. Nice try Stop preaching and ask yourself...... Why didn't God have the notion beforehand that Man would attempt to partake in the Tree of Life? Simple Logic Here. Hell the Tree of Good and Evil wasn't off limits either? More contradictions on your religious text not me. So because I have to navigate through this minefield of contradictions you call a religion and truth my arguments like Merit? Look what the hell I'm working with here lol. Yes Per the story Man was going to Die anyway. Yes Per the story Eve is Never shown to die Yes Per the story Satan gives Man and Woman the platform to obtain Knowledge Yes Per the Story it is shown he who gave Knowledge to Man as evil Yes Per the story it is shown Adam and Eve to be the first Man and Woman Yes Per the story Cain is fearful for his Life from other People outside of the Eden The bible is a contradiction. So lets make it plain I think it's total falsehood. If I choose to step within the conversation then I must use what was written to formulate an argument. Showing me raising points that are in contradiction to one another is an indication of the shortfalls with this religion not my arguments. An Example I can argue Man and Woman were given every right to eat from any tree they chose to. I can also show a separate argument where Satan gives man Knowledge by providing Man and Woman the platform to think by showing the "God" was lying. Is that a contradiction on my part or on your religious text? Nice try Again [/color][/quote] Because you don't answer questions so I have to ask more questions of you. For example.... I have asked you twice about these other people that Cain feared. Ya think the objective thinker hasn't noticed this question has went unanswered? The objective thinker says to them self " How can Damie state thats irrelevant if VP is saying "God" is lying? You do this allllllll the time. If I'm raising the different aspects of your faith that shows gross contradictions how can that be placed in my lap stating my arguments lack merit? Again nice try. I mean you can do as you choose but the true objective thinker isn't buying it. Again your reasoning is only logical because of your audience that agrees with you. [/quote] Underlined part, negative. Its the way you come at people when in a debate that makes some folks be like whatever, not reading or even going to consider what he is saying simply cause, the way he has put it COMPLETELY turns me off. Has nothing to do with majority being whatever religion here. It has to do with YOU and the way YOU portray your message. Now granted, you do have the free will to portray your message however you want to, but then don't blame it on the audience when the audience doesn't receive it. Take a look at how you delivered it. And once I acutally started reading your posts and engaging you, I saw for myself on how you would take things and twist them to fit your jaded view. I've said this to you before. It has nothing to do with what you believe, I believe, etc. You take something that someone has stated and run all the way to Timbuktu with it, and what you are saying isn't even what the person wrote (i.e. you saying Damie said that our ancestors didn't know they should be free until they were taught Christanity, and that is said no where in his posts. I'm just saying, it's not there in black and white). I've noticed what you do is assume alot, or infer. But you know, an assumption or an inference isn't an actual fact until proven so (and just because you say it's 'so', doesn't mean it's 'so' for others and you can't expect it to be when it comes to religion and things of "faith" base because the key aspect for any religion is 'faith'). But yeah, just wanted to interject here because you have stated twice its because of the audience of this board, when in all honesty, its you and your delivery, or lack there of, not the audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 2, 2010 16:57:22 GMT -5
Underlined part, negative. Its the way you come at people when in a debate that makes some folks be like whatever, not reading or even going to consider what he is saying simply cause, the way he has put it COMPLETELY turns me off.Has nothing to do with majority being whatever religion here. It has to do with YOU and the way YOU portray your message. Now granted, you do have the free will to portray your message however you want to, but then don't blame it on the audience when the audience doesn't receive it. Take a look at how you delivered it. And once I acutally started reading your posts and engaging you, I saw for myself on how you would take things and twist them to fit your jaded view. I've said this to you before. It has nothing to do with what you believe, I believe, etc. You take something that someone has stated and run all the way to Timbuktu with it, and what you are saying isn't even what the person wrote (i.e. you saying Damie said that our ancestors didn't know they should be free until they were taught Christanity, and that is said no where in his posts. I'm just saying, it's not there in black and white). I've noticed what you do is assume alot, or infer. But you know, an assumption or an inference isn't an actual fact until proven so (and just because you say it's 'so', doesn't mean it's 'so' for others and you can't expect it to be when it comes to religion and things of "faith" base because the key aspect for any religion is 'faith'). But yeah, just wanted to interject here because you have stated twice its because of the audience of this board, when in all honesty, its you and your delivery, or lack there of, not the audience. That's the thing... I could care less what turns you off or on for that matter. I have no vested interest in your feelings. This is a public forum and I can do as I please and so should you. You're being selfish self centered and sensitive. You are for your freedom of expression but are against mine. Which is fine BUT you're not gonna shut me up. I'm not catering to you. Seriously its really not that deep. See Vudu understands everyone can have an opinion. Vudu understands anyone can say whatever they please, how they please, when they please, and where they please if I put forth thoughts in a open forum. Vudu doesn't get upset about candid jokes towards ancestral knowledge or unbelief's for that matter. Vudu is secure in what he feels. Vudu is steadfast in where he stands. Vudu understands everyone may not like what he has to say which is fine. That's their prerogative. Happy Easter lol |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 2, 2010 18:51:13 GMT -5
First it was: Free will are actions done FREE from constraints.
Now it's: free will is stated to be the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
See the slight of hand? Action magically turns into power to make free choices and I guess we're not supposed to be any the wiser LOL. Fine... you changed your definition. Let's give props were props are due. In the end, it took YOU to finally prove YOURSELF wrong on yet another point (that Adam and Eve didn't have Free Will prior to the serpent). Afterall their act of eating from the tree was an exercise of free choice unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. We'll add that to your growing list of misconceptions (Immortal Eve, Son of Man Isaiah, Free Will Serpents) You have also just proven that Adam didn't lose "free will" to eternal life. God put Cherubim and a sword to guard the way to the Tree of Life, He didn't take Adam's ability to decide what to do. NOTHING prevented Adam from choosing to try to circumvent the sword or the Cherubim to get to the Tree of Life - just as nothing prevented him from choosing not to. But don't worry I know full and well you will not address this. You're just going to keep repeating your talking points no matter how weak, erroneous, and flawed they are shown to be. Have at it.
LOL what would there be FOR you to say? Further or otherwise?
onolympus.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=relig&thread=30&page=3#190015
Tell you what, here's my response to whatever you try to say regarding this matter:
Moving on: Your questions about "the others" around Adam has NOTHING to do with if the Serpent lied about the outcome of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
However since (as you said) you are "constrained" to the text to formulate your arguments I encourage you to "constrain" yourself to the text to answer your "question". When were male and female created and then when were Adam and Eve created?
Happy Easter everyone. Y'all take it easy
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Apr 2, 2010 20:33:43 GMT -5
First it was: Free will are actions done FREE from constraints.
Now it's: free will is stated to be the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
See the slight of hand? Action magically turns into power to make free choices and I guess we're not supposed to be any the wiser LOL. Fine... you changed your definition. Let's give props were props are due. In the end, it took YOU to finally prove YOURSELF wrong on yet another point (that Adam and Eve didn't have Free Will prior to the serpent). Afterall their act of eating from the tree was an exercise of free choice unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. We'll add that to your growing list of misconceptions (Immortal Eve, Son of Man Isaiah, Free Will Serpents) You have also just proven that Adam didn't lose "free will" to eternal life. God put Cherubim and a sword to guard the way to the Tree of Life, He didn't take Adam's ability to decide what to do. NOTHING prevented Adam from choosing to try to circumvent the sword or the Cherubim to get to the Tree of Life - just as nothing prevented him from choosing not to. But don't worry I know full and well you will not address this. You're just going to keep repeating your talking points no matter how weak, erroneous, and flawed they are shown to be. Have at it. Only you would take a paraphrase of a definition cut it off to prove your point. My entire statement read Free will are actions done FREE from constraints. Can a non believer have eternal life Damie? EMPHASIS on the bolded. It is mundane to think, thought is NOT an action. We have had this discussion on this board before. I stood firm with asking can a non believer have eternal life in your faith. Is non belief an action? Is non belief a thought? This is what the objective thinker says to them-self when they read your rhetoric. lol Circle jerking the conversation as always. You're not serious about that by a longgggggg shot. Furthermore I still stand by this statement "You have this mark as you embark on a spiritual journey. When you encounter the gatekeepers of the realms.. show them and they will surely allow passage- Vudu Prince" That's fine BUT I already used this. I can dig using bruh colloquialisms. That's not putting the bruhs in the convo though if thats your point. So in return I'll say  How is that?  Furthermore people can read. I have used more bible verses then everyone combined. Each time I present them you either don't answer the question attached, answer half way or bring forth rhetoric. So I move to another question for you to butcher. I keep doing this until you totally abandon your bible. Which I see you are about to do again. Again your argument is irrelevant. My premise is your God is lying. If you can pull from Luke, Romans, Preacha Pork Chop etc to prove Satan lied can I not do the same? Whats good for you is improper for me? lol You can't be serioussssssssssss. Sooooo are you admitting there is a contradiction in the bybull. I mean we need to ask what are you exactly saying here? Is this a way to state the other people outside of Eden were from the male and female in Gen 1:27? So there were two creations? Lillith is that you honey?  Like are you gonna come on out and say this? I'll wait. I HOPE this isn't like your other argument saying Adam was made to praise when it shows why he was made verbatim. In the end I make the gregarious thinking Christians on this board uncomfortable(which isn't all the Christians who are here). Just the shuck and jive back sliding mofo's lol. The more discomfort I see.... the more I will press on. Its been fun as always. In the words of one of my favorite pimps  |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Apr 3, 2010 1:34:00 GMT -5
Dude, did you even read what I typed? Where did I say you can't express how you feel about anything? Selfish, self-centred, how many times have you posted that? Whose in their feelings now? I said you can't sit up here and keep saying its the audience when actually its the delivery. And you talking about you secure in this, that, and the third, need some Kleenex?
Know what, I shouldn't be surprised, this is your M.O. Its what you do, take dang near everything and twist it.
Happy Easter to you also, even though I know you being condescending, and may God
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Apr 3, 2010 1:41:35 GMT -5
And may God bless you.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Apr 5, 2010 6:53:06 GMT -5
First it was: Free will are actions done FREE from constraints.
Now it's: free will is stated to be the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
See the slight of hand? Action magically turns into power to make free choices and I guess we're not supposed to be any the wiser LOL. Fine... you changed your definition. Let's give props were props are due. In the end, it took YOU to finally prove YOURSELF wrong on yet another point (that Adam and Eve didn't have Free Will prior to the serpent). Afterall their act of eating from the tree was an exercise of free choice unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. We'll add that to your growing list of misconceptions (Immortal Eve, Son of Man Isaiah, Free Will Serpents) You have also just proven that Adam didn't lose "free will" to eternal life. God put Cherubim and a sword to guard the way to the Tree of Life, He didn't take Adam's ability to decide what to do. NOTHING prevented Adam from choosing to try to circumvent the sword or the Cherubim to get to the Tree of Life - just as nothing prevented him from choosing not to. But don't worry I know full and well you will not address this. You're just going to keep repeating your talking points no matter how weak, erroneous, and flawed they are shown to be. Have at it. Only you would take a paraphrase of a definition cut it off to prove your point. My entire statement read Free will are actions done FREE from constraints. Can a non believer have eternal life Damie? EMPHASIS on the bolded. It is mundane to think, thought is NOT an action. We have had this discussion on this board before. I stood firm with asking can a non believer have eternal life in your faith. Is non belief an action? Is non belief a thought? This is what the objective thinker says to them-self when they read your rhetoric. lol Circle jerking the conversation as always. You're not serious about that by a longgggggg shot. Furthermore I still stand by this statement "You have this mark as you embark on a spiritual journey. When you encounter the gatekeepers of the realms.. show them and they will surely allow passage- Vudu Prince" That's fine BUT I already used this. I can dig using bruh colloquialisms. That's not putting the bruhs in the convo though if thats your point. So in return I'll say How is that? Furthermore people can read. I have used more bible verses then everyone combined. Each time I present them you either don't answer the question attached, answer half way or bring forth rhetoric. So I move to another question for you to butcher. I keep doing this until you totally abandon your bible. Which I see you are about to do again. Again your argument is irrelevant. My premise is your God is lying. If you can pull from Luke, Romans, Preacha Pork Chop etc to prove Satan lied can I not do the same? Whats good for you is improper for me? lol You can't be serioussssssssssss. Sooooo are you admitting there is a contradiction in the bybull. I mean we need to ask what are you exactly saying here? Is this a way to state the other people outside of Eden were from the male and female in Gen 1:27? So there were two creations? Lillith is that you honey? Like are you gonna come on out and say this? I'll wait. I HOPE this isn't like your other argument saying Adam was made to praise when it shows why he was made verbatim. In the end I make the gregarious thinking Christians on this board uncomfortable(which isn't all the Christians who are here). Just the shuck and jive back sliding mofo's lol. The more discomfort I see.... the more I will press on. Its been fun as always. In the words of one of my favorite pimps
This doesn't even need a rebuttal.
Obfuscate to your heart's content - the credibility you continue to negate is your own. |
|
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
