What if it was created by God to evolve?

[YoursTrue]

Let's please not try to dictate if, when, and how people choose to respond to one another, especially in an exchange that doesn't involve you.aybe you

Let's please not try to dictate if, when, and how people choose to respond to one another, especially in an exchange that doesn't involve you.

It involves the reader sometimes.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Actually I was just asking because it's a point of interest. If a person makes a comment it's open to questions. Since Dan professes to believe in a God of sorts, and John53 and subduction zone do not, yes, a legitimate question is why? Sorry some of you do not feel that way.

It's not that some of [us] don't feel that way, so don't deflect.

If you have a question, ask. However, bear in mind that just because you ask a question doesn't mean your question is deserving of a response.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What motivates you to ask that?

More deflection. If you can't answer or don't want to answer, then don't.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It involves the reader sometimes.

You clearly have a different definition for "involve" than most.

 

[Brian2]

No. I see the bible god as the moral agent he is supposed to be. Regardless of being human or anything else.
As a moral agent, the character is immoral, psychopathic and every other nasty thing under the sun.

You ignore who and what the Bible God is and what He has authority over and any long term plans He may have and describe Him in human terms without regard to those things.

The supposed bad situation is 110% his own responsibility.

It is God's responsibility in the sense that He knew what would happen before He created anything.
But it is not God's responsibility in the sense that God did anything wrong.
And of course God has taken it on Himself to bring this bad situation of evil in His creation to an end.
You can throw blame around all you want but it is judging God from a place of ignorance.

 

[Brian2]

No. I see the bible god as the moral agent he is supposed to be. Regardless of being human or anything else.
As a moral agent, the character is immoral, psychopathic and every other nasty thing under the sun.

You ignore who and what the Bible God is and what He has authority over and any long term plans He may have and describe Him in human terms without regard to those things.

The supposed bad situation is 110% his own responsibility.

It is God's responsibility in the sense that He knew what would happen before He created anything.
But it is not God's responsibility in the sense that God did anything wrong.
And of course God has taken it on Himself to bring this bad situation of evil in His creation to an end.
You can throw blame around all you want but it is judging God from a place of ignorance.

 

[F1fan]

You ignore who and what the Bible God is

I think @TagliatelliMonster nailed it, as he is reading the Bible literally.

and what He has authority over and any long term plans He may have and describe Him in human terms without regard to those things.

God abuses his authority, and violates many moral values. The Noah Flood is an example (of course it's a myth, but you believers take it all seriously, yes?).

It is God's responsibility in the sense that He knew what would happen before He created anything.

Like children with cancer. Thanks for acknowledging God is completely responsible.

But it is not God's responsibility in the sense that God did anything wrong.

Of course you have to say this, you have to agree with the monster God with a track record of doing violence against the innocent.

And of course God has taken it on Himself to bring this bad situation of evil in His creation to an end.

Then why did God create evil in the first place? What's taking the "all-powerful" God so long?

You can throw blame around all you want but it is judging God from a place of ignorance.

Irony. None of your comments make any coherent sense, and conflict logically.

 

[YoursTrue]

You clearly have a different definition for "involve" than most.

Oh, that's interesting. So if a person makes a comment to another, it's only between those two individuals that comments or questions about the comments can be made?

 

[YoursTrue]

More deflection. If you can't answer or don't want to answer, then don't.

You haven't said why you used the word ironic and how it relates to my comment. You're deflecting.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Oh, that's interesting. So if a person makes a comment to another, it's only between those two individuals that comments or questions about the comments can be made?

No. It means only those two are involved and a third party who is not invited by the original two would be inviting themselves, or more accurately, imposing themselves into the discussion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You haven't said why you used the word ironic and how it relates to my comment. You're deflecting.

Another deflection. Answer the question or don't. It's of no consequence to me. But this will be the last deflection that I will be responding to in this thread.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not that some of [us] don't feel that way, so don't deflect.

If you have a question, ask. However, bear in mind that just because you ask a question doesn't mean your question is deserving of a response.

If that's true then others do not have the right to press for an answer?? Tell me since you're a moderator. Maybe you think my question doesn't deserve a response. I thank you again for your responses...they really help.

 

[YoursTrue]

Another deflection. Answer the question or don't. It's of no consequence to me. But this will be the last deflection that I will be responding to in this thread.

Very good. Excellent! It's clear -- you can't or don't want to answer. Thank you again!!

 

[YoursTrue]

No. It means only those two are involved and a third party who is not invited by the original two would be inviting themselves, or more accurately, imposing themselves into the discussion.

Then don't impose yourself either. Thank you and thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. It means only those two are involved and a third party who is not invited by the original two would be inviting themselves, or more accurately, imposing themselves into the discussion.

Oh, so you say the "original two" have to INVITE a third party to the conversation? or ask questions? woweeee,....a new rule perhaps.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If that's true then others do not have the right to press for an answer?? Tell me since you're a moderator. Maybe you think my question doesn't deserve a response. I thank you again for your responses...they really help.

I was trying to keep my position as a moderator out of the discussion and keep the discourse to common courtesy.

But since you ask, your imposition definitely skirted violating Rule 1.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was trying to keep my position as a moderator out of the discussion and keep the discourse to common courtesy.

But since you ask, your imposition definitely skirted violating Rule 1.

oops

 

[SalixIncendium]

Then don't impose yourself either. Thank you and thank you.

I didn't impose on the discussion. I was helping you to correct your course.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't impose on the discussion. I was helping you to correct your course.

The two parties seem quite capable of answering or responding. If they don't want to, then no one should press anyone at all ever for an answer. And what is "Rule 1" that you mention? There was no need insofar as I see it for you to say anything. Naturally others see it differently and would be willing to explain what they mean by "ironic." But seems that's not you. OK, have a good one...if you want to explain or quote RULE 1, go ahead. If not, don't worry, it's ok, I understand and have a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It means only those two are involved and a third party who is not invited by the original two would be inviting themselves, or more accurately, imposing themselves into the discussion.

Well I would never do that But perhaps Dan realizes the fruitlessness of discussing his own private beliefs with a person that insists that their God is a liar, but refuse to even learn how they are saying that. When people have clearly self contradictory beliefs and won't admit it one knows that all that they will do is to use their poor "logic" and insist that their standard is correct (even though every rational person knows that it is not) and insist that any variation from their personal belief is blasphemy.