Why 'create' only to kill?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Hello:

On another web forum during a debate over whether God was “evil” for the flood and Sodom & Gomorrah a poster asked, “why would God ‘create’ people if He knew that He would only have to kill them?” Unfortunately, he left our discussion without replying to my response.:hrm:

I thought I would repeat my answer here, in point form to save space, and would like to receive some feedback on my views on this matter if possible, (positive and negative).:poke:

1) God did not ‘create’ these people; He ‘allowed them to be born’.
2) If God did not allow people to be born simply because He knew they would reject Him, would that not be unfair?
3) What if people had children who did not reject God but died BEFORE the flood occurred, wouldn’t denying these children life by denying their parents life, be ‘evil’?
4) Children were often the only means of support for ancient peoples. If God denied these people (who may have been righteous) children, simply because these children would later reject Him, would that not be ‘evil’?
5) If God only wants us to accept Him of our own free choice, how could denying life to those would reject Him allow us to exercise this choice?
6) Part of the purpose of the flood and S&G was to impart lessons and revelations to mankind that there are limits even to God’s mercy and forgiveness. What lesson could be imparted by preventing people ( who could have been the righteous parents of unrighteous children) from having children ?

This in a nutshell was my observation of this question, your opinions would be welcome.

[yxboom]

This is the Orientation section. I am moving this to a more appropriate section.

[theist]

God works all things for his glory and all the things he does are just.

in HIS grip,

rustyb

[Evangel]

05-02-2003 @ 01:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85420#post85420)
FirstSunday33ad:
Hello:

hello :smile:

On another web forum during a debate over whether God was “evil” for the flood and Sodom & Gomorrah a poster asked, “why would God ‘create’ people if He knew that He would only have to kill them?” Unfortunately, he left our discussion without replying to my response.:hrm:

Interesting question, I’m sure it would be a hurdle to clear for both Christians and non-Christians alike.

I thought I would repeat my answer here, in point form to save space, and would like to receive some feedback on my views on this matter if possible, (positive and negative).:poke:

positive is probably what you’ll receive from me.

1) God did not ‘create’ these people; He ‘allowed them to be born’.

No contention.

2) If God did not allow people to be born simply because He knew they would reject Him, would that not be unfair?

We are given the chance to beg forgiveness for our sins from God. We wanted the knowledge of EVIL and good so we got it.

3) What if people had children who did not reject God but died BEFORE the flood occurred, wouldn’t denying these children life by denying their parents life, be ‘evil’?

I seem to be missing what your saying here

4) Children were often the only means of support for ancient peoples. If God denied these people (who may have been righteous) children, simply because these children would later reject Him, would that not be ‘evil’?

A loving god would love the child regardless of whether he makes the right decision or not.

5) If God only wants us to accept Him of our own free choice, how could denying life to those would reject Him allow us to exercise this choice?

God does not want you to only believe in Him. He wants you to trust, abide, and love Him. He could not simply tell you to do these things.

6) Part of the purpose of the flood and S&G was to impart lessons and revelations to mankind that there are limits even to God’s mercy and forgiveness. What lesson could be imparted by preventing people ( who could have been the righteous parents of unrighteous children) from having children ?

Again further explanation will be need in order for me to fully grasp this question.

This in a nutshell was my observation of this question, your opinions would be welcome.
[/quote]

The reason why evil exists in the world is because it is a part of human nature. Suffering is even the cornerstone of Christianity. God simply could not reveal himself again as Jesus to the world just to make people believe, because even then they would have doubts. They would still only believe in him and I think it’s a far worse thing to hate God than to ignore God. If you knew God now you would either have to love, abide, trust, and love him or you would have to hate him for all of your life’s problems and you would almost never be able to have faith in him.

[mickiel]

What is this free choice many think we have? What is the choice, life or death, thats not a choice, its an ultimatim. What is the choice, obey God or die, that is not a choice, only a fool would pick death or misery. If i have two children, place them inside of a fenched in back yard, tell them they may play freely anywhere within the yard, but they cannot go outside of the yard, are they really free? Well this is exactly what God did to mankind. I don't think God is really interested in mankinds "choice", God knows his will , will be done, God is going to get his way reguardless of what men think or do. God is interested in HIS OWN CHOICE, his own plan, not what men are planning.

[Solly]

Today @ 10:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91826#post91826)
mickiel:

What is this free choice many think we have? What is the choice, life or death, thats not a choice, its an ultimatim. What is the choice, obey God or die, that is not a choice, only a fool would pick death or misery. If i have two children, place them inside of a fenched in back yard, tell them they may play freely anywhere within the yard, but they cannot go outside of the yard, are they really free? Well this is exactly what God did to mankind. I don't think God is really interested in mankinds "choice", God knows his will , will be done, God is going to get his way reguardless of what men think or do. God is interested in HIS OWN CHOICE, his own plan, not what men are planning.

Mickiel, I think I agree with what you are saying here. But perhaps not, you will have to decide.

Obey me or die. That is definitely God's will in a nutshell, it's what he told Adam, it's what he told Israel. Adam chose to die. what is shocking though, is that God is good and benevolent; what person would seriously consider rebelling against him? We would; we did; we still do.
Put a sign up saying "No ball games on this area" and guess what will happen?
The Gospel, however, comes in saying, die, and then obey me. That's what Christ did, and we follow. In dying to ourselves in Him, we come alive to God.

[Ryokan]

If Iput a gun to your head and said "obey me or die!" would that make me good or benevolent?

[Solly]

It wasn't a gun Ryo, it was a warning about consequences; since god is judge jury and executioner, they are pretty serious consequences, but Adam wasn't being forced to do something bad, but to abstain from something he was told was bad.

What is your obedience because the law says don't do this? Is it rendered non obedience? Yet, to quote the phrase, they bear the sword to punish evil. What do good people have to fear from the law?

[Ryokan]

Who made God the law? Not me. He made himself. Individuals who do that are alled kings, as God is called a king, but good democrats like me call them tyrants.

And if God was so benevolent, why did he make small, puny things that he could boss around, instead of equals? Insecure?

[Solly]

Today @ 03:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91970#post91970)
Ryokan:

Who made God the law? Not me. He made himself. Individuals who do that are alled kings, as God is called a king, but good democrats like me call them tyrants.

And if God was so benevolent, why did he make small, puny things that he could boss around, instead of equals? Insecure?

:rofl: How could God make an equal.

Puny? Do you like pets?

King? What's wrong with that?
/me thinks: oh wait, tax on tea.
Think of it as a benevolent one party state:

Gratuitous satire:
I, Gabriel, the duly appointed Returning Officer for Universe Central, hereby declare the results of the General Election to be as follows -
God I am Lord Party A number without number
Satan I want to be Lord Ballot papers disqualified.
I hereby declare God duly elected to the seat of Lord of All in the constituency of the Universe.

[Ryokan]

I like pets. I have a shih tzu named Gwen. But she is far too hairy and stupid to call a person. I don't make intelligent, sentient beings my pets. That is called slavery, Solly.
And the revolution was hardly about tea, but Brits and Americans have disagreed about this since the beginning of time, (which was a little over 200 years ago for Americans) so I will let it slide.

It would be easy for an all powerful God to do anything. If he wanted to be loved, why not make someone as powerful, good, etc. as yourself? And, since being good is ultimately the best thing in existence, then wouldn't it be benevolent to make friends who were more capable of being happy, because they could be good, like him? Would that be more benevolent then making his friends "pets", flawed and easy to push around? And don't give me the free will arguement, because if beings like God couldn't have free will, how does God have freewill?

From the sound of it, God runs elections the way I would.:teeth:

[mickiel]

[All avialible facts we have on him have been distorted by the views and translations of men. The largest of these distortions have come from the Cristians themselves. Albeit perhaps unkowningly. This is why Isaiah 40:17 shows what God really thinks of our opinion of him. God reguards our views of him as less than nothing and meaningless. What God reguards as important is his plan of salvation, that plan provides life FOR ALL MANKIND, and this life is free. It cannot be earned, you cannot bargin for it, and it cannot be limited to any particular group. That is the simple gospel message that christians have perverted.

[FirstSunday33ad]

05-10-2003 @ 05:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93072#post93072)
mickiel:

[All avialible facts we have on him have been distorted by the views and translations of men. The largest of these distortions have come from the Cristians themselves. Albeit perhaps unkowningly. This is why Isaiah 40:17 shows what God really thinks of our opinion of him. God reguards our views of him as less than nothing and meaningless. What God reguards as important is his plan of salvation, that plan provides life FOR ALL MANKIND, and this life is free. It cannot be earned, you cannot bargin for it, and it cannot be limited to any particular group. That is the simple gospel message that christians have perverted.
Being God you would think He could let us know this without being distorted by the evil Christians.

But wait, you seem to have gotten the message...or is that a distortion? If it isn't a distortion, then how do you know that ...

"What God reguards as important is his plan of salvation, that plan provides life FOR ALL MANKIND, and this life is free. It cannot be earned, you cannot bargin for it, and it cannot be limited to any particular group."

Who told you this and how do you know that they didn't distort the original message themselves, especially if what you say ("All avialible facts we have on him have been distorted by the views and translations of men.") is true?

But if God thinks so little of mankind that He doesn't even think it worth His while to give us a distortion free message, then why do you think He wants to give us ANYTHING, let alone salvation?

And if He needs to give us salvation, that must mean salvation can be kept from us, it is not ours at birth. But if it can be kept from us, do we know what to avoid doing? Or what to do? How do we know this hasn't been "distorted" and we aren't actually doing the very thing we are supposed to avoid doing?

I'm sorry, but your distracted, apathetic god who doesn't even feel it worth his while to give us a set of distortion free instructions strikes me as worse than any other god type I have encountered to date.

[FirstSunday33ad]

05-09-2003 @ 10:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91970#post91970)
Ryokan:

Who made God the law? Not me. He made himself. Individuals who do that are alled kings, as God is called a king, but good democrats like me call them tyrants.

And if God was so benevolent, why did he make small, puny things that he could boss around, instead of equals? Insecure?

Translation: If I can't be thought of as God, then I will remove God from existence.

The sad thing about atheists is, they don't see they hyper-arrogance of this type of thinking. They see it as reasonable. But if their own child came up to them and demanded an equal say in the running of the household, they would refuse or be thought fools.

The only reply this deserves is, the day you can create a universe of your own is the day you can be thought of as God. Now go to bed, you have school in the morning.

:bonk:

[Ryokan]

Translation:I am close minded, arrogant, and afraid to deal with the question, but rather would fight strawmen.

The problem with most christians is that they have the hyper arrogance to suggest they know what other people are thinking. You could have at least asked if it was arrogance(if you weren't misinterpreting the statement anyway), which is okay.


I did not once suggest I should be God. I WOULD BE A TERRIBLE GOD! However, just as I would be a terrible tailor, I am still capable of judging whether or not someone else is. I am also capable of questioning God motives, or veracity of his so called book. If we don't question things, how can we understand them. My question is, for the moment, why did God want slaves, not equals, if he is all powerful, all good, and benevolent.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 02:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94449#post94449)
Ryokan:

Translation:I am close minded, arrogant, and afraid to deal with the question, but rather would fight strawmen.

The problem with most christians is that they have the hyper arrogance to suggest they know what other people are thinking. You could have at least asked if it was arrogance(if you weren't misinterpreting the statement anyway), which is okay.


I did not once suggest I should be God. I WOULD BE A TERRIBLE GOD! However, just as I would be a terrible tailor, I am still capable of judging whether or not someone else is. I am also capable of questioning God motives, or veracity of his so called book. If we don't question things, how can we understand them. My question is, for the moment, why did God want slaves, not equals, if he is all powerful, all good, and benevolent.

Judge a tailor? Okay, if a tailor handed you a finely crafted suit would you be able to tell if he double stitched to increase the quality or inflate the price. If he used one type of fabic for the lining instead of another, would you be able to know why? If the pockets were stitched in or stitched together would it mean anything to you? In short, without being a tailor, could you REALLY be able to tell if the suit was quality or not?

You don’t consider it arrogance to “question” God? Who are you to question God? I don’t let my three-year-old question me, and she is a lot closer to being my equal then you are to being God’s.

Let me tell you what you are actually doing, using your tailor analogy. You know nothing about cloth, cut, fashion, sewing, or anything to do with tailoring. You walk into the tailor’s shop and the moment he presents you with your suit you start demanding “why did you use thread, why not staples? Why is this made of cloth and not steel? Steel is more durable and wears longer. It provides better protection?” You pull on the pocket till it tears – “sloppy workmanship” you cry. You pull on the other pocket but it refuses to tear – “too many stitches” you yell. In short, how can you honestly question anything you are so completely ignorant of?

God did not want slaves. He did not create slaves. But nothing can equal God and nothing should want to.

[mickiel]

This is what God thinks of your views, Isaiah 40:17, they are reguarded by him as less than nothing and meaningless. Nothing you think about him means anything to him, you or anyonelse. Our views of God are meaningless to him. You can be as arrogant as you wish, it still is complettely ignored by him. His will is what matters to him, not yours.

[Ryokan]

But if you beat your three year old daughter, she'd know something was wrong.

and saying know one should want to be a great as God is another strawman. The question was why a ALL POWERFUL GOD, a god who can do anything, couldn't make similair companions, but instead made us.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yesterday @ 04:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94595#post94595)
Ryokan:

But if you beat your three year old daughter, she'd know something was wrong.

and saying know one should want to be a great as God is another strawman. The question was why a ALL POWERFUL GOD, a god who can do anything, couldn't make similair companions, but instead made us.

"Why didn't God make us His equal?

1) Why should He?
2) Whose to say He isn't in the process of doing just that?
3) Define "equal"
4) Why do you want to be God's equal?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yesterday @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94549#post94549)
mickiel:

This is what God thinks of your views, Isaiah 40:17, they are reguarded by him as less than nothing and meaningless. Nothing you think about him means anything to him, you or anyonelse. Our views of God are meaningless to him. You can be as arrogant as you wish, it still is complettely ignored by him. His will is what matters to him, not yours.

Actually the verse reads:

Isaiah 40:17 Before him all the nations are as nothing; they are regarded by him as worthless and less than nothing.

It does not say “God thinks of your views…as less than nothing and meaningless. Nothing you think about him means anything to him, you or anyonelse.” That is an overly pessimistic and nihilistic view of the Almighty. You are distorting the meaning of this verse.

The entire chapter of Isaiah is actually a prophecy of the coming of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God.

[Ryokan]

1) a. If he was truly benevolent, he would want his creations to be as best off as possible, not plagued by disease sickness and death, powerless b. He he wanted real love, he would have made equals, because people who you have complete and utter power over, and bribe with rewards or threaten with fire can never truly be said to love you. c. Why not?
2) I don't know. How would you come about such knowledge? I don't think its in the bible, (book of mormon maybe, I don't know), no one from Rome has sent it down, and unless I am mistaken, you don't have privy to God's "plan"
3) All good, all powerful, etc.
4) If I were God's equal, I would cease to be me. I am too flawed, to weak, live in space/time, etc. I don't want to be his equal. But I question his motives. Even if you could convince me he exists, I still wouldn't want to worship a cosmic bully.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 10:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95228#post95228)
Ryokan:

1) a. If he was truly benevolent, he would want his creations to be as best off as possible, not plagued by disease sickness and death, powerless b. He he wanted real love, he would have made equals, because people who you have complete and utter power over, and bribe with rewards or threaten with fire can never truly be said to love you. c. Why not?
2) I don't know. How would you come about such knowledge? I don't think its in the bible, (book of mormon maybe, I don't know), no one from Rome has sent it down, and unless I am mistaken, you don't have privy to God's "plan"
3) All good, all powerful, etc.
4) If I were God's equal, I would cease to be me. I am too flawed, to weak, live in space/time, etc. I don't want to be his equal. But I question his motives. Even if you could convince me he exists, I still wouldn't want to worship a cosmic bully.

1)
a) We are plagued by sickness etc, because we rebelled and disobeyed. God doesn’t owe us a reward for deciding not to trust Him.
b) Untrue. I loved my parents but was not their equal and they had power over me. People often love others who have power over them. Many a slave has loved his master; many a subordinate has loved his commander.
c) You answer yourself in point 2.

2) You make my point so we must be in agreement here. You can’t say, “God wants slaves” when you admit you don’t know why He created us as He did. If I am not privy to God’s plan, then you must admit you certainly are not. It could very well be that “becoming as gods” is the ultimate destiny of those who follow God. I don’t know – and neither do you.

3) And I think you must also add “free to choose”. But since we have demonstrated such irresponsibility on exercising this choice, wouldn’t it be even more irresponsible to give us unlimited power?

4) Help me out here? If you don’t WANT to be God’s equal, then why do you fault God for not MAKING you his equal? Look at what you are saying a) God makes you his equal robbing you of free choice – He’s unjust or b) God doesn’t make you His equal – He’s a bully. You are declaring God is unworthy of worship because He created us. That isn’t a rational thought and it reveals the flaw in your thinking.

[Ryokan]

does god have free will?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yesterday @ 09:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96020#post96020)
Ryokan:

does god have free will?

Define : "Free Will"

[Bob Jenkins]

FirstSunday33ad

"Why didn't God make us His equal?

1) Why should He?
2) Whose to say He isn't in the process of doing just that?
3) Define "equal"
4) Why do you want to be God's equal?

The obvious answer to #1, spoken in your manner, is Why shouldn't he? The real answer is that anyone who creates inferior things is inferior himself.

So my son, in answer to #2, you must consider yourself a practise round..

#3 see any dictionary

#4I AM his equal and so are you. God is a product of your mind and has no characteristics that you can not conceive .

[Warcraft3]

Isnt it a bit difficult to figure out a fellow humans motivations, much less Gods?

I mean ,I cant even figure out why most people do the things they do (especially women:poke: :tongue:), so Im not going even to try to figure out Gods motivations for making certain choices.

Im not saying its wrong to have questions or to search for answers, but these are pretty big questions. And even if we did know the answer its possible that we would not truly understand it while we exist in the physical universe.

Im not trying to dodge the question here, but I really think trying to figure out anyones motivations is something which may not be possible in all circumstances.


Russ

[FirstSunday33ad]

05-15-2003 @ 11:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98072#post98072)
Bob Jenkins:

FirstSunday33ad



The obvious answer to #1, spoken in your manner, is Why shouldn't he? The real answer is that anyone who creates inferior things is inferior himself.

So my son, in answer to #2, you must consider yourself a practise round..

#3 see any dictionary

#4I AM his equal and so are you. God is a product of your mind and has no characteristics that you can not conceive .

1) Are you saying that if I carve a statue that statue is automatically my equal or I am an inferior carver? :huh:

2) :shrug:

3) I know the meaning, but I have learned that skeptics will use definitions most of us have never heard before.

4) YOU are not God's equal, if you were you could heal the sick and raise the dead. God is not the product of my mind or your's, I - and you - are the product of HIS! :angel:

[Bob Jenkins]

From FirstSunday33ad

1) Are you saying that if I carve a statue that statue is automatically my equal or I am an inferior carver?

2)

3) I know the meaning, but I have learned that skeptics will use definitions most of us have never heard before.

4) YOU are not God's equal, if you were you could heal the sick and raise the dead. God is not the product of my mind or your's, I - and you - are the product of HIS!


1.The second supposition. An inferior product is the result of inferior production..

4. I can't personally heal the sick and raise the dead. But humankind can - at least that portion of humankind that are doctors. God is certainly not the product of MY mind - we can agreee on that! But if God was not just a product of your mind then you could point him out to me so I could touch him, see him, smell him. In short, experience him with all my evoltionary given senses.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 12:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103849#post103849)
Bob Jenkins:

From FirstSunday33ad




1.The second supposition. An inferior product is the result of inferior production..

4. I can't personally heal the sick and raise the dead. But humankind can - at least that portion of humankind that are doctors. God is certainly not the product of MY mind - we can agreee on that! But if God was not just a product of your mind then you could point him out to me so I could touch him, see him, smell him. In short, experience him with all my evoltionary given senses.


1 reply: Meaningless. This is such a subjective statement that it is meaningless. Define "inferior product". Determine why it is inferior. Describe "superior product". Determine what it is that makes it superior. Then describe how the product affects the producer, namely, if I produce a statue of unsurpassed excellence, why does this make the statue my equal?

4 reply: If humankind can raise the dead (not even all humankind, I will settle for just one) then can you tell them to please raise my Mom? Oh, can't do it, can they. They can only use the gifts and intelligence they got from God to extend life, but once life is gone, it is gone and "humankind" can't change that.

As to your second point - meaningless. You make the assumption that all things that exist only exist in the physical universe. Yet clearly they do not. Emotion has no substance, yet it exists. Radio waves can not be touched, seen or smelt, yet are just as real as the radio. And before you say "they can be heard" let me reply "so can God, to those who have ears".

Finally, not an important point, but worth making; regarding your "evolutionary senses", it is ironic that you put this after a demand to see, touch and smell God. Could you please point to evolution so that I may see it, touch it and smell it myself?

[Bob Jenkins]

From FirstSunday33ad

Bob:
1.The second supposition. An inferior product is the result of inferior production..

4. I can't personally heal the sick and raise the dead. But humankind can - at least that portion of humankind that are doctors. God is certainly not the product of MY mind - we can agreee on that! But if God was not just a product of your mind then you could point him out to me so I could touch him, see him, smell him. In short, experience him with all my evoltionary given senses. ”



FirstSunday33ad:
1 reply: Meaningless. This is such a subjective statement that it is meaningless. Define "inferior product". Determine why it is inferior. Describe "superior product". Determine what it is that makes it superior. Then describe how the product affects the producer, namely, if I produce a statue of unsurpassed excellence, why does this make the statue my equal?

4 reply: If humankind can raise the dead (not even all humankind, I will settle for just one) then can you tell them to please raise my Mom? Oh, can't do it, can they. They can only use the gifts and intelligence they got from God to extend life, but once life is gone, it is gone and "humankind" can't change that.

As to your second point - meaningless. You make the assumption that all things that exist only exist in the physical universe. Yet clearly they do not. Emotion has no substance, yet it exists. Radio waves can not be touched, seen or smelt, yet are just as real as the radio. And before you say "they can be heard" let me reply "so can God, to those who have ears".

Finally, not an important point, but worth making; regarding your "evolutionary senses", it is ironic that you put this after a demand to see, touch and smell God. Could you please point to evolution so that I may see it, touch it and smell it myself?

1. The statement is wholly objective. I can show you an inferior productiom process, a real, concrete assembly line. I can let you hear, smell, taste, feel every person involved with the production process. You can do the same (well, not hear every tool) every tool involved in the production process. You can use the very same senses when shown an inferior product. What is meaningless to you in my remark?.

Pull out your dictionary (perhaps you don't have one and thus have trouble knowing common definitions (remember asking for a definition of "equal") but borrow one if you don't have one, find one on the web, or make a trip to the library nearest you.

I have no need to determine anything you ask in your post. The product is inferior by definition. Superiour products are not pertainent to the discussion.

The producer affects the product in that the quality of production, of which the producer is part, has a corresponding value for the effect Your example does not apply since you speak of "equality" and the discussion is about the cause and effect within a production theme.

4. I gave you more than one and specified it was a group who could heal the sick and raise the dead ("bring back to life" - because you are definitionly challenged)

I am sorry your mother is gone, but I thought that you would understand that doctors can not perform that service all the time. You seem to have conceded the first part (heal the sick) but doubt the second (raise the dead). Well, let me tell you of my deaths and the efforts made to bring me back to life (I will just stick to the objective cases). My heart has stopped several times and it that not a sign of death? Surely if my heart had not been started again I would have begun the process of decay. But nurses and doctors through manual cardio resusication and electrical devices restored my life. I live today only because I have an implanted device that overrides the failure of my body to produce a heart beat more than 10% of the time. God given, you say? Nah, it is science and technology as much as the doctor's art that gives me life.

But just suppose, for arguements sake, that God has given intelligence to doctors and scientists. Certainly you'll concede that some peope do not have the same degree of intelligence to become one of that group. These people can be deemed inferior in life giving skills. Why wouldn't your god have given these people the same degree of intelligence? Why should your god give so little intelligence to a few that they can not even care for themselves let alone the rest of humankind.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 08:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105422#post105422)
Bob Jenkins:

From FirstSunday33ad


1. The statement is wholly objective. I can show you an inferior productiom process, a real, concrete assembly line. I can let you hear, smell, taste, feel every person involved with the production process. You can do the same (well, not hear every tool) every tool involved in the production process. You can use the very same senses when shown an inferior product. What is meaningless to you in my remark?.

Pull out your dictionary (perhaps you don't have one and thus have trouble knowing common definitions (remember asking for a definition of "equal") but borrow one if you don't have one, find one on the web, or make a trip to the library nearest you.

I have no need to determine anything you ask in your post. The product is inferior by definition. Superiour products are not pertainent to the discussion.

The producer affects the product in that the quality of production, of which the producer is part, has a corresponding value for the effect Your example does not apply since you speak of "equality" and the discussion is about the cause and effect within a production theme.

4. I gave you more than one and specified it was a group who could heal the sick and raise the dead ("bring back to life" - because you are definitionly challenged)

I am sorry your mother is gone, but I thought that you would understand that doctors can not perform that service all the time. You seem to have conceded the first part (heal the sick) but doubt the second (raise the dead). Well, let me tell you of my deaths and the efforts made to bring me back to life (I will just stick to the objective cases). My heart has stopped several times and it that not a sign of death? Surely if my heart had not been started again I would have begun the process of decay. But nurses and doctors through manual cardio resusication and electrical devices restored my life. I live today only because I have an implanted device that overrides the failure of my body to produce a heart beat more than 10% of the time. God given, you say? Nah, it is science and technology as much as the doctor's art that gives me life.

But just suppose, for arguements sake, that God has given intelligence to doctors and scientists. Certainly you'll concede that some peope do not have the same degree of intelligence to become one of that group. These people can be deemed inferior in life giving skills. Why wouldn't your god have given these people the same degree of intelligence? Why should your god give so little intelligence to a few that they can not even care for themselves let alone the rest of humankind.

1) You still have not answered how the product affects the producer. We both know what we are speaking about. Man is an imperfect (ie inferior) creation therefore – according to your logic – this makes God an imperfect (ie inferior) producer. Your example of the assembly line is not relevant to this purpose.

To bring this back to its original starting point, which was why are we not God’s equal and your reply to my question; “if I carve a statue [is] that statue…automatically my equal or I am an inferior carver?” Your reply was that it would be the second supposition, namely that by carving the statue I am an inferior carver.

Everything you say after this point became meaningless, as you still haven’t shown why by carving a statue I become an inferior carver; production lines notwithstanding.
So in attempt to pull this back to the original thread, I will leave off the analogies and speak plainly. God gave us the freedom to choose and He gave us the opportunity to choose badly. He allowed Satan (or the “Serpent”) to present the alternative viewpoint and let us decide for ourselves who we would believe. We chose to believe the serpent and learned how to sin. Although we were made perfect, the choice was ours to make and we were capable of choosing wrongly. If we did not have this capability we would not be free creatures but little more than wind up toys.

4) Again the thread of this argument is beginning to slip away so I will bring it back on track. I asked in my original question “why do you want to be God’s equal”. Your reply was “I AM his equal and so are you. God is a product of your mind and has no characteristics that you can not conceive .” To which I said “YOU are not God's equal, if you were you could heal the sick and raise the dead.”

This gets us to our doctors and their ability to affect cures. Not wanting to get bogged down in pointing out that “heal the sick” is not exactly what is done by doctors who prescribe treatment to affect a cure, I focused on what I – mistakenly it turns out – thought would be clearly understood – namely; “raise the dead”.

You wrote, “I can't personally heal the sick and raise the dead. But humankind can” to which I asked “If humankind can raise the dead (not even all humankind, I will settle for just one) then can you tell them to please raise my Mom?” Your reply that your heart stopped and they restarted it then is nothing less than evasion, since you clearly understand what is meant by “raise the dead” (bring back to life). Death – for your enlightenment – is not the stopping of a beating heart. Death is the cessation of brain activity. Many times a person’s heart will keep beating but the person is “brain-dead”. Once that happens all the science in the world can’t bring the person back – and you know this. Humankind – not even one – can raise the dead.

Your final series of questions are off topic. If you want to discuss why some of us have different abilities and skills or differing degrees of intelligence, then declare that this thread is closed and start a new one.

[Bob Jenkins]

From FirstSunday33ad


1) You still have not answered how the product affects the producer. We both know what we are speaking about. Man is an imperfect (ie inferior) creation therefore – according to your logic – this makes God an imperfect (ie inferior) producer. Your example of the assembly line is not relevant to this purpose.

I'm sorry you have so little ability to see the relevance.


To bring this back to its original starting point, which was why are we not God’s equal and your reply to my question; “if I carve a statue [is] that statue…automatically my equal or I am an inferior carver?” Your reply was that it would be the second supposition, namely that by carving the statue I am an inferior carver.

Everything you say after this point became meaningless, as you still haven’t shown why by carving a statue I become an inferior carver; production lines notwithstanding.
So in attempt to pull this back to the original thread, I will leave off the analogies and speak plainly. God gave us the freedom to choose and He gave us the opportunity to choose badly. He allowed Satan (or the “Serpent”) to present the alternative viewpoint and let us decide for ourselves who we would believe. We chose to believe the serpent and learned how to sin. Although we were made perfect, the choice was ours to make and we were capable of choosing wrongly. If we did not have this capability we would not be free creatures but little more than wind up toys.


I answered your question


4) Again the thread of this argument is beginning to slip away so I will bring it back on track. I asked in my original question “why do you want to be God’s equal”. Your reply was “I AM his equal and so are you. God is a product of your mind and has no characteristics that you can not conceive .” To which I said “YOU are not God's equal, if you were you could heal the sick and raise the dead.”

This gets us to our doctors and their ability to affect cures. Not wanting to get bogged down in pointing out that “heal the sick” is not exactly what is done by doctors who prescribe treatment to affect a cure, I focused on what I – mistakenly it turns out – thought would be clearly understood – namely; “raise the dead”.


You have very little comprehension of the meaning of words if you can not understand that healing the sick is affecting a cure.


You wrote, “I can't personally heal the sick and raise the dead. But humankind can” to which I asked “If humankind can raise the dead (not even all humankind, I will settle for just one) then can you tell them to please raise my Mom?” Your reply that your heart stopped and they restarted it then is nothing less than evasion, since you clearly understand what is meant by “raise the dead” (bring back to life). Death – for your enlightenment – is not the stopping of a beating heart. Death is the cessation of brain activity. Many times a person’s heart will keep beating but the person is “brain-dead”. Once that happens all the science in the world can’t bring the person back – and you know this. Humankind – not even one – can raise the dead.


Brain activity is usually not monitored in the emergency when death is declared when a person's heart stops and can not be restarted. The measurement of brain activity is usually reserved for those cases when the patient is in coma or is on life giving machines.


Your final series of questions are off topic. If you want to discuss why some of us have different abilities and skills or differing degrees of intelligence, then declare that this thread is closed and start a new one.


That's up to you.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yesterday @ 01:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107083#post107083)
Bob Jenkins:

From FirstSunday33ad



I'm sorry you have so little ability to see the relevance.



I answered your question



You have very little comprehension of the meaning of words if you can not understand that healing the sick is affecting a cure.



Brain activity is usually not monitored in the emergency when death is declared when a person's heart stops and can not be restarted. The measurement of brain activity is usually reserved for those cases when the patient is in coma or is on life giving machines.



That's up to you.

:dunce:

I can’t really believe that you are all that interested in trying to communicate any idea or convince anyone of anything. Using obfuscation and illogic as part of your argument only causes your audience to conclude that you have no real reason for initiating a discussion outside of yelling fire in a theatre – looking for a reaction not a response.

The shame is mine however in that I have allowed my ego to lead me into this pointless exchange – even after I stated I was going to follow Jinx’s lead and ignore it. I will have to file this one as life lesson to myself – don’t entertain a fool, you provide only amusement for him and embarrassment for yourself.

So – I am closing this thread. Now go celebrate your “victory”.

:yipee: