"Why? Why? WHY?!" a direct quote from Ceridwen018 and many others (Jesus, moral)

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by anders

Hogcaller,

Please use a normal font if you want me to read what you post.

I second that request.

[Doc]

I think a more mysterious and intriguing question which as occured to me several times is that, "Would we be here had it not been for Original Sin?" Of course Adam and Eve may have had children, but most likely we would not have been here because such terrible things as oppression and prejudice would not have caused my German great-grandparents and great grandparents from Slovakia to eventually immigrate to America. And generations later, their paths would not have crossed to create me. So in a twisted way, I can thank Adam and Eve for my own existance.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Hogcaller

humans were not created to govern their affairs successfully independent of God. God did not give them the right or the ability to do that.

Why would God give humans the right/ability to govern themselves independently, but not give them the right/ability to govern themselves independently successfully? Why not just refuse humans the right/ability to govern themselves independently altgoether (thus preventing any possible evil that could come of it)? If your answer is "because that would violate our free will" I refer you back to my original question: Can God create a perfect world?

Originally Posted by Hogcaller

They decided to go their own way instead of submitting to God’s rule. In fact, the woman thought that they could become “like God, knowing good and bad.” (Genesis 3:5) Relying on their own self-centered thinking, they wanted to determine for themselves what was right and what was wrong.

Ah yes, independent thinking--religion's ultimate faux pas. There should have been an eleventh commandment which read "Thou shalt not think for thyself".

[HOGCALLER]

Master Vigil,

May I respectfully suggest that you read my post!

I understand you have an opinion or rather a definition of perfection to which you are attached. If I am wrong correct me and provide scriptural support, but it is not a Bible based definition. You are entitled to your opinion and your definition, but they have little relevance to my argument based on the Bible and the definitions gleaned from the Scriptures and provided above. I would be happy to have you point out specifically where I have misapplied, misinterpreted or misunderstood any those scriptures.


If you want to argue your opinion against my opinion, well OK, but that reminds me of the Little Rascals:

You say: “Perfection can not be relative.”

And I say: Yeah, seez who?


And you say: Seez me!


And I say: Oh yeah?


And you say; Yeah!


Do not misunderstand me. You are entitled to your opinions! But so am I! Pointless isn't it?


You say: “For one perfection can not negate another.”


I say: What in the world does that mean?


You say: “Perfection is perfection.”


I say: Yeah, seez who?


You say: “When you use different ambiguous connotations for words only proves the theory that the bible in itself is also ambiguous and imperfect.”


I say: Really? Give me a specific example.

You say: “I think it is the other way around. I think that if a thing is indeed perfect, there would be NO superficial differences. NO differences at all. And there are many inconsistencies within the bible. I think that definitely detracts from its "perfection."


I say: Yeah, seez who? I am sure your statements of opinion sound good to you but they carry no weight at all with me. Where is your proof?

You say: “Indeed; massacreing of native americans, the crusades, and countless other horrible things have been done for the sake of that "holy" book. God must be proud.”


I say: May I respectfully suggest that you read my post! I have already answered that.


You say: “Hmmm... so who's faith is right? Catholic, lutheran, southern baptist, orthodox, etc...? The differing of faith only proves the subjectivity of the bible. And negating its credibility as "perfect."”


I say: as I stated in my original post, “that is another discussion for another time.”

You say: “But again, it was written by humans using human standards.”


I say: Yeah, seez who? You are very much mistaken! Not only that, I provided scriptural proof, in my original post, that supports my saying so. What ‘proof’ do you provide other than your opinion?


You say: “Remember, the bible was written over a long period of time by different people. It was changed by interpretation by the authors, and again changed by constantine during the council of nicaea. It was changed when translated, and is changed when every individual reads it. It is not divinely perfect. Or else all christians would believe the same. But alas, their individual interpretation allows its imperfection to show itself and allows all the denominations to flourish.”


I say: I have already answered that above. Either you didn’t get it or you didn't bother to read it, which is it?

[HOGCALLER]

The Voice of Reason,

You can't say that I have not given it some serious thought -- which is what it deserves.

[HOGCALLER]

Doc,

As I pointed out above, Thank God!

[HOGCALLER]

Mr_Spinkles,

I think I understand your question. And I think the Bible has an answer, but my eyes and head are killing me tonight also I will be away for a few days, so it may be some time next week before I can get back to you. "Talk" to you then.

[Mr Spinkles]

Hogcaller-- Take care, friend. Here's hoping your time away is safe and pleasant.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by HOGCALLER

You can't say that I have not given it some serious thought -- which is what it deserves.

You are correct, Hogcaller. I could not, and would not say that you haven't given the matter serious thought. I am only trying to point out that if you are more succinct in making your point, it is easier for others to read and digest. Thus, you will get better responses.
Like Spinkles, I wish you well while you are away.

Take care,
TVOR

[Master Vigil]

"I understand you have an opinion or rather a definition of perfection to which you are attached. If I am wrong correct me and provide scriptural support, but it is not a Bible based definition."

This is exactly my point. The bible goes against logic in the sense of perfection. And I do not need scriptural support for my position. For that would only weeken it for scripture is illogical. My definition is that of countless theologians and logicians throughout the ages. Do not attack me personally, attack descartes, or even st. thomas aquinas.

The simple idea of perfection says that perfection can not be relative. Think about what you are saying. How can something be perfect, and be relative. Perfection is an objective idea, not a relative one.

Saying that one perfection cannot negate another means... It means if many things are perfect, than one cannot be more perfect than another. And if multiple things are "perfect" than they in effect are the same thing.

If you allow the bibles definition of perfection to be ambiguous, than what stops the rest of the bible from being ambiguous? And anyone who takes a basic logic course knows that one of the formal fallacious arguments is one of ambiguity.

My statements of opinion are based on logic and factual data. Not an ambiguous argument taken from an ambiguous book. Perfection, not the bibles ambiguous definition but the real definition, does not allow imperfections of any kind. No discrepencies, no ambiguities, PERFECTION!!!!!

This is why I have lost so much respect for christians. The main point of christianity and of all religions is goodness and love. Not trying to prove the bibles "perfection" and divinity. You have become trapped by your own quest to prove something that you lost your way. Did mother theresa debate the bible like this? Padre Pio? St. Francis? Even the dalai lama doesn't try to disprove the bible or prove the sutras. The book is not the point. It is the interpretation of the book that is important.