The creator did it.

[viole]

What you are missing here is that one, God does not want anyone to perish in hell. He does want everyone to spend all of eternity in heaven. This is why he did intervene by Jesus leaving his realm and come to earth for the sole purpose of being the only sacrifice acceptable to God on our behalf for our sin! Jesus also told us "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one gets into heaven accept through me." He paid your penalty for sin, and all he asks, is that you believe by faith that he did that and rose on the third day from the grave. Which by the way was witnessed by over 500 people, its a historical fact.
Yes, free will/choice is apart of your human condition. God has cleared the path for you to get into heaven for all eternity. But you have to make the choice, accept his conditions, or, reject them. And yes, you are correct, "Why would any rational human on the planet, willfully choose to spend an eternity of everlasting suffering?"

If He does not want, and yet it happens, then His Will will not be done. Tough Luck J.
Maybe You will do a better job with the next Universe.

This life was never intended to be finite, God created humans to live with him forever. But there came a problem. Satan. When sin entered the picture, everything changed. Satan hates God, and he hates you as well because out of all of the creation, humans were a personal creation of God. Because of that, Satan tried to stop salvation for man from happening through Herod the great during the time Jesus was born, but failed. Satan thought he had finally won by killing Jesus on the cross but it backfired when Jesus rose from the dead, just as he said he would on the third day. Because of this, Jesus defeated Satan and now every person who wants to spend eternity in heaven can, if they choose to accept the terms. We accept terms all the time and willfully do to continue with many things we do online. They will ask, do you accept the terms and agreements before going any further. We click,
"I agree." Why wouldn't you agree to accept Gods terms to escape an eternity in hell (which Satan would love to keep you from) and be in heaven after you die? It's kind of a no brainer right?

I hope you are joking. Taking the passover weekend off for our sins actually paid for our sins? That was very cheap. I thought my sins were important. Dunno,requiring to stay dead at least a month?

Listen, God wants a personal relationship with you, not the politics of a church. You actually brought up some very important facts. However, Gods promise of spending eternity in heaven is not an impossible reward. Secondly, there is a guilt, its called sin. You cannot live in heaven in sin. This is why God provided a way out through his son Jesus. Thirdly, he did provide a way as I mentioned above. Finally, the only thing left is whether you want to accept his free gift of salvation through his Son Jesus or not. I'ts completely up to you. Yes or no.

So, I assume you all have a personal relationship with the lord. I wonder what you guys talk about with him during those relationships, the weather? since you seem to disagree on very basic stuff.

You know, so much of what you said here is absolutely true. Whats interesting is that people plan their vacation better than they plan their eternity! So, whats more important? We don't know when our last day on earth is, accidents happen all the time. Wouldn't be prudent to KNOW, you are covered no matter if you live a long life or it gets snuffed out by some accident where you will spend your eternity? Your final destination is in your hands, you choose. God doesnt send anyone to hell and he doesnt send anyone to heaven. He paid your ticket to heaven but it doesnt belong to you unless you accept it. Something to think about.

Yes, to think about. Is 3 minutes enough? I dont want to be too disrespectful.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

There are too many problems to take it literally.. too many errors of geography and history.. too many contradictions and anachronisms.. and too many gross exaggerations for the Bible to be inspired of God.

That’s precisely the reasons I now approach the Bible with certain amounts of skepticism.

I used to beileve in the Bible and took at its face value, since my older sister gave me one when I was 15. Although I never join a church, I did believe what the Bible say without closely examining the verses and narrative.

It wasn’t until 2000 that I had my first doubt. It was Matthew 1:23 interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.

From there and elsewhere I began to compare other parts of the Bible against known historical and geographical information.

I have always been interested in myths and history, but most of attention were that of ancestors Greece and Rome, and medieval Europe, not the Near East. But in the last 12-13 years I have been focusing on Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Levant.

 

[joelr]

I have to ask: is Satan still forced to crawl on his belly? If not, what happened to Gods verdict when he was found guilty to propose bad apples?

Ciao

- viole

Well technically the snake wasn't Satan. In those days satan worked for god as the angel of death, was allowed to torture Job, god was judge and satan a prosecuter in the trial of the nation of Judah, they had some type of partnership. Much later the story changed to everything bad is satan and he's gods big enemy. Which makes no sense because they are clearly on good terms in the stories?


"The word "satan" does not occur in the Book of Genesis,[15] which mentions only a talking serpent[15] and does not identify the serpent with any supernatural entity.["
"The idea of Satan as an opponent of God and a purely evil figure seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple Period,[31] particularly in the apocalypses"


2nd section "Historical Development"
Satan - Wikipedia

 

[sooda]

That’s precisely the reasons I now approach the Bible with certain amounts of skepticism.

I used to beileve in the Bible and took at its face value, since my older sister gave me one when I was 15. Although I never join a church, I did believe what the Bible say without closely examining the verses and narrative.

It wasn’t until 2000 that I had my first doubt. It was Matthew 1:23 interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.

From there and elsewhere I began to compare other parts of the Bible against known historical and geographical information.

I have always been interested in myths and history, but most of attention were that of ancestors Greece and Rome, and medieval Europe, not the Near East. But in the last 12-13 years I have been focusing on Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Levant.

Its such an interesting study.. There is so much more than just the poetic history of the Hebrews. I find it utterly fascinating.

 

[ManSinha]

The idea of Satan as an opponent of God and a purely evil figure seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple Period,[31] particularly in the apocalypses

When did DC get hold it for Lucifer Morningstar?

 

[joelr]

When did DC get hold it for Lucifer Morningstar?

Marvel made "Satan" a position that different underworld demons can claim if they become powerful enough to challenge for it.
Currently it's not shown if it is held by anyone but Mephisto is the lord of the bad afterlife where Earth sinners go - Hell.
Satan did make an appearance once in Defenders, Mephisto was there and his son Hellstrom and a bunch of other low demons. The actual Satan showed up and they were surprised.
Then Hela rules the Asgardian dark underworld in Hel.

I don't know D.C. enough, I prefer Marvel.

 

[ManSinha]

Marvel made "Satan" a position that different underworld demons can claim if they become powerful enough to challenge for it.
Currently it's not shown if it is held by anyone but Mephisto is the lord of the bad afterlife where Earth sinners go - Hell.
Satan did make an appearance once in Defenders, Mephisto was there and his son Hellstrom and a bunch of other low demons. The actual Satan showed up and they were surprised.
Then Hela rules the Asgardian dark underworld in Hel.

I don't know D.C. enough, I prefer Marvel.

Lucifer Morningstar

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What are you talking about? How do you think that link supports your claims?

You do not appear to understand how Haeckel was right and how he was wrong. I understand why they put Haeckel's drawings in textbooks (hint they are not used as "proof of evolution").

I guess you need another one of your trusted links revealing the disingenuous nature of Haekel’s drawings, which you are trying to justify (LOL): by PZ Myers, no less:

“In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.”

Take it to heart, SZ.

 

[tas8831]

I guess you need another one of your trusted links revealing the disingenuous nature of Haekel’s drawings, which you are trying to justify (LOL): by PZ Myers, no less:

“In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.”

Take it to heart, SZ.

Cool how you stopped quoting there - the very next sentence:

"Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory.""​

In addition, Myers is referring to Haeckel's theory, not the ToE. Haeckel's drawings have not been used to support evolution in any way for close to 100 years (though embryology does present some very good evidence for evolution, the propaganda of the Moony Wells be dmned). EVERY text I have that shows his drawings explicitly explains that his ideas were wrong.

Pity that creationists rely on this sort of "argument" rather than presenting evidence that actually supports their creation story.

 

[tas8831]

Apply this to Haeckel's embryos fraud, which was still being published in college textbooks over 100 years later. Probably still is.

You present yourself as being knowledgeable of the issues surrounding Haeckel - please tell us what Haeckel's theory was, how his drawings were being used, etc.

Without linking to essays or copy-pasting.

 

[Audie]

You present yourself as being knowledgeable of the issues surrounding Haeckel - please tell us what Haeckel's theory was, how his drawings were being used, etc.

Without linking to essays or copy-pasting.

Cruel

 

[Audie]

Cool how you stopped quoting there - the very next sentence:

"Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory.""​

In addition, Myers is referring to Haeckel's theory, not the ToE. Haeckel's drawings have not been used to support evolution in any way for close to 100 years (though embryology does present some very good evidence for evolution, the propaganda of the Moony Wells be dmned). EVERY text I have that shows his drawings explicitly explains that his ideas were wrong.

Pity that creationists rely on this sort of "argument" rather than presenting evidence that actually supports their creation story.

"Cool how you stopped quoting". It was
really a gift, another perfect example of, yes,
intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"Cool how you stopped quoting". It was
really a gift, another perfect example of, yes,
intellectual dishonesty.

No, it wasn’t, Audie....Mr. Myers’ further statements (about Wells) simply had no bearing on the point being made, which was that Ernst Haekel was dishonest with his fudged drawings (highlighting the similarities but blurring the differences), yet Myers admitted that they’re still being used in textbooks today.

So don’t go there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it wasn’t, Audie....Mr. Myers’ further statements (about Wells) simply had no bearing on the point being made, which was that Ernst Haekel was dishonest with his fudged drawings (highlighting the similarities but blurring the differences), yet Myers admitted that they’re still being used in textbooks today.

So don’t go there.

But that has been shown to be a false claim by creationists. In one case when a publishing deadline was due he repeated a couple of drawings with minimal differences. Those were corrected, without any creationist goading, in later editions. And they are used to illustrate the history of the theory, but his drawings are not used as evidence today. Especially since some of Haeckel's ideas have been refuted. Physiology does not repeat ontology.

 

[Audie]

No, it wasn’t, Audie....Mr. Myers’ further statements (about Wells) simply had no bearing on the point being made, which was that Ernst Haekel was dishonest with his fudged drawings (highlighting the similarities but blurring the differences), yet Myers admitted that they’re still being used in textbooks today.

So don’t go there.

What interests me is your use of the word "dishonest".

You must then be our first creationist to see the
dishonesty in the noted Dr. K Wise statement
that if all the evidence in the universe went against
his religious views (yec) he would still be a yec.

Maybe you can explain it to your benighted breathren!

 

[tas8831]

No, it wasn’t, Audie....Mr. Myers’ further statements (about Wells) simply had no bearing on the point being made, which was that Ernst Haekel was dishonest with his fudged drawings (highlighting the similarities but blurring the differences), yet Myers admitted that they’re still being used in textbooks today.

So don’t go there.

So then surely you can show us an example of Haeckel's drawings being used in textbooks TODAY as support for either Haeckel's ideas of the ToE.

I mean, you CAN CAN do that, right?

HINT: That is NOT the case in any of the 8 or 9 college level general biology or evolution-related texts I have, but I am sure you will know about several modern texts that do.

I don't care what PZ Myers said.

 

[tas8831]

No, it wasn’t, Audie....Mr. Myers’ further statements (about Wells) simply had no bearing on the point being made, which was that Ernst Haekel was dishonest with his fudged drawings (highlighting the similarities but blurring the differences), yet Myers admitted that they’re still being used in textbooks today.

So don’t go there.

By the way - you must have missed this:

You present yourself as being knowledgeable of the issues surrounding Haeckel - please tell us what Haeckel's theory was, how his drawings were being used, etc.

Without linking to essays or copy-pasting.

 

[tas8831]

Or, you know, something dishonest like looking it up now

Yup - I love that standard creationist "I knew it all along" bit...
Typically employed when they realize that they can no longer hide the fact that they have no idea...

 

[Audie]

So then surely you can show us an example of Haeckel's drawings being used in textbooks TODAY as support for either Haeckel's ideas of the ToE.

I mean, you CAN CAN do that, right?

HINT: That is NOT the case in any of the 8 or 9 college level general biology or evolution-related texts I have, but I am sure you will know about several modern texts that do.

I don't care what PZ Myers said.

yet Myers admitted that they’re still being used in textbooks today.

Yes, we would not any of them dishonest
statements to be publicized.

Side note, IF it were all true as the creos claim,
that ws Dr. H did was intentionally dishonest, a fraud
of some sort, then...so, exactly, what?

It means the whole ToE is wrong?

What?

Are "Mars canals" a fraud too?
Why arent creos equally outraged by that?
Tracing the Canals of Mars: An Astronomer's Obsession

 

[Audie]

Since "honesty" and, "intellectual honesty" are
a topic, I wonder if someone would like to
submit one (1) intellectually honest objection
to the ToE. Something that purports to disprove
it.