• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

serp777

Well-Known Member
Continued



1. A big difference from what exactly?

...........
5. What did it feel like being proved wrong? Not very nice is it?

I haven't now. I said "another misrepresentation or an outright lie." I did not say from you. This comprehension thing gets worse.
Do you know what an implication is? Why would I assume that you're talking about some irrelevant person that isn't in this discussion. You're disguising your sentences' ambiguity under a false pretense.

Yes it does, the alternative is to allow complete ambiguity by confusing how the Holy Ghost communicates. You said "Also saying you know its true because you hear voices from a Ghost isn't an argument." Specifying that I heard. as with my ears, voices. My response is appropriate, I have not heard voices so your words misrepresent me or they are based on a lie. Either Way, it brings your intentions into question on here.
Absurd. Both methods are equally ambiguous, and you haven't demonstrated different levels of ambiguity. And your response isn't appropriate because magic concepts transmitted to your brain isn't any better than hearing voices. It doesn't matter what the method was, you're missing the point.

How do you know that. You have already proven you lack of knowledge in Christianity so why would you expect me to believe that without solid evidence. Secondly, I am not in competition with any other belief system. I am nor here to convert anyone to my way of thinking. The Christian values that I adhere to are all found in the scripture, there is nothing extraordinary that I believe in
No you haven't demonstrated i have a lack of knowledge. You asserted it based on your own belief system. I also never said you were here to convert so i don't know why you're making such an irrelevant red herring.

I don't know why you are telling me that. I simply have no concern as to what other religions think. I am not a school boy in the play ground seeking popularity.
Half of your arguments rely on faith and apriori beliefs which are in contradiction with the faith and apriori beliefs of scientologists. They can't both be true. Therefore both are equally valid and therefore your faith based arguments are entirely unreliable. I also never said you were seeking popularity. Another misrepresentation of my position--yet another strawman you've attacked.

1. You said that "Your word that your mind didn't make an illusion for you isn't persuasive or convincing to anyone." As illusions are "an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience." one would naturally expect them to be seen with the natural eye or the minds eye, therefore, by saying what you said could equally mean actually vision or vision within your mind, therefore, when you say that you never said anything about seeing it with your eyes you are not be accurate or truthful

2. I know it like I a blind man knows when someone walks in the room. He knows that it is not him. What magic concept do you refer to. I have said nothing that can be interpreted as magical.

3. I have never said that I know everything and to my knowledge I have never given that impression.
You'll have to rephrase #1 because its incomprehensible. I however recognzie that in these long posts its easy to make mistakes. Everyone makes them.
#2. Its magical if God is beaming information into your head.
#3. Well when god is beaming concepts into your head I have no idea of knowing how much knowledge God beamed.
I have no explaining to do. You either believe me or you don't. Satan has no power over me, or anybody else. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
So basically you give up this argument. This is a surrender. You do have explaining to do. You have to explain how you would recognize the devil. The devil is supposedly a master deciever that everyone is susceptible to.
I mean you recognize how ridiculous your argument is, right? it would be like saying: "I know that you're wrong about everything in this debate. You either believe me or you don't". What was the point of saying this since it isn't even an argument?
Yes, assumptions based on the content of your posts which suggests that you are an atheist. My assumptions are only valid to me. I am not making assumptions for anything else.
You assume that you'd be able to recognize the devil. And your assumptions can clearly be faulty and wrong. They have no reasonable basis .
Your statement does not logically follow from the previous statement.
How so?
1. Yes, that is quite facetious and provocatively argumentative.

2. I said "Sorry, but you are speaking from ignorance. You don't know what you are talking about." I used the word "you" so I was refering to you and not everybody else. You use verybody else just to vilify me. Just another example of you sophistry.

3. I have no idea what you mean by magical concepts, other than you are using it to intentionally taunt me, just like an atheist would do.
#1. Well it is a debate so i don't know what you're expecting, but it is indeed argumentative along with everything else i've said. If you aren't interested in arguments then why are you in the religious debate section?
#2. Well as far as i'm aware not many people have a hotline to God. Apparently you do with your concept beaming technology or magic or whatever you want to call it.
#3. How else should i describe it? How is it not magical/supernatural? Is God using some brain upload technology thats non magical?



1. I know you didn't define him thus, that is what I said.

2. In case you didn't know, I cannot prove anything about God. Nothing at all.

3. There is a very logical reason. God id a perfect being. To expose Him to imperfection would contaminate and desecrate Him

4. If you do not don't accept the ideology of Christian theology why are you here trying to demolish the beliefs of those who do agree with them? It sound a bit contentious.

5. Again, why are you here if you think that whatever any Christian says on here is senseless to you.

#1. Not according to what you said before.
#2. Another great reason why most of your points rest on an unstable foundation.
#3. According to whom? What evidence do you have that that's true?
#4. Because they make no sense and this thread isn't specifically about Christianity. I never said I would argue within the framework of Christianity. I'm not accepting Christian propositions to be true for the sake of argument. I'll only accept them if you have sufficient reason or evidence to show that they're likely. So far most of your arguments rely on faith and assertions. Worse yet, you've included almost no scriptural quotes to show that your beliefs are actually consistent with Christianity and the bible.
#5. I never said I think whatever any Christian says on here is senseless. Yet another strawman. Seriously can you stop misrepresenting what I'm saying? Its not intellectually honest.
1. What blurred lines could there be. You have a choice or you don't have a choice. It is black and white logic.

2. You can be judged fairly if you have full free agency, you cannot be judged at all if you have no free agency. There is no grey area.

3. Again, you use another straw man. We are not talking about being black, white or grey. The conclusion that we can draw from that cannot be attributed to free will as one is colours and the other is authority. Guess what that is. It is a non-sequitur because it does not logically follow from the previous statement
#1. Well that's just the limit of your cognition and imagination. I can forsee situations where you have partial free will, but because of brain damage you're not able to make a choice thats totally your own. Or perhaps neurotransmitters in the brain change the way you think thus affecting the free will of your decision by making you lean a certain direction. I happen to be able to put together more complex scenarios.
#2. Proof that there is no grey area?
#3. Wow you don't actually know what an analogy is do you? The black grey and white thing was an analogy for having no free will, having partial free will, and having full free will respectively. Its not irrelevant you just didn't understand.
1. I have not tried to prove anyone wrong. That is not in my persona. I have merely been expressing my opinion.
2. It may well be entertaining for you to prove others wrong, although I doubt that it doesn't happen that much, but it can be quite upsetting for those who are proved wrong, especially when they are not actually wrong. In debate there is no right or wrong, there are just opinions and beliefs. No debater walks way from a debate thinking that they are wrong.
3. If my opinions prove people right then I am enthralled that I have done that. I never try and prove people wrong, I express my opinion. It is unethical to come on here with the sole purpose to make people miserable by proving them wrong, especially when they use underhanded debating tactics to do it. It is sick.
4. I know that they influence you with the environment, however, you said that alcoholism is down to our genes when that is not the only reason.
5. If you want to think I am wrong then please be my guest. I will stick with reality.
#1. Completely ludicrous. You've been trying to prove many of my points wrong, to no avail.
#2. Also complete nonsense. I have walked away from debates knowing i was wrong. And I learned a lot. that disproves your assertion. And there is right and wrong in a debate. that's why you have debates--to discern the truth. Its not just a matter of opinion in many cases, although it could be.
#3. You've tried to prove me wrong literally in this same paragraph with the alcoholism thing. Where is your short term memory?
#4. I didn't say it was the only reason and you're pointing out trivial semantics to try and win a point which is inconsistent with #1 ironically. I've stated numerous times that the environment and culture play an important part. You've addressed those points. its obvious you're desperately trying to win a small point because you're spiteful over the fact that i've been proving you wrong over and over again.
#5. Nice zinger although there's no content.
 

serp777

Well-Known Member
Justice could never be served as it will always be attributable to a gene. Murderers would get off by claiming to have a killing gene and rapists would say they have a rapest gene. By your logic there is no immorality and no sin we are all the product of our genes.

1. As can be seen by the above paragraph that I wrote previously. I am not offering a substitute, I and demonstrating the effects that will ensue if sin was attributable to genes, as you suggested, I was not replacing anything with a similitude, I was giving a conclusion. I have to admit, I do not think you will understand this either. It seem like you cannot adequately reason these things out. You have insinuated that my perceived results to your argument is a straw man, a substitute argument. I was right, you do not understand what a straw man is, do you.
2. That would be a miscarriage of justice as they could not be held accountable for there actions. By your logic we wouldn't need any prisons
The effects are irrelevant as i've stated. Were debating the truth of these things, not whether the outcome is something that is desirable. What matters to me is whats true. You're bringing up an irrelevant red herring. Also it was a strawman: you mistrepresented my position and attacked the misrepresentation. Like I said, i never said that we were just a byproduct of our genes.
Tell me, what is the connection between your rebuttal above and my original post, as shown below. Until you clarify it I cannot answer you.
Its going to be difficult to explain something so obvious, but earlier you were saying stuff like this: 'Murderers would get off by claiming to have a killing gene and rapists would say they have a rapest gene. By your logic there is no immorality and no sin we are all the product of our genes." So in this hypothetical you're saying that the gene determines the actions of the rapist and thus the rapist lacks free will and so there is no immorality because there was no decision.
In my response i said "it doesn't matter if the lack of free will presents a problem or not--what maters is what's true.". It doesn't get any more obvious.
1. If my belief is irrelevant do you accept that your beliefs are irrelevant as well?

2. Really, I will stand, hand on heart, and say that everything I am and everything that I possess is the result of my choices, for which I know that I will have to stand accountable for..

3. My digestion. What do you think is wrong with my digestion.
1. Not necesserily although many of them will be irrelevant. I haven't stated many beliefs. I've mostly been questioning yours.
#2. I don't care if you swear before God. If free will was an illusion then logically you would think you make your own choices, but you wouldn't actually. You can't actually know, based on argument or reason or knowledge, that your free will isn't an illusion.
#3. Nothing but you've missed the point. Go over it again.
1. Eve was taken from the rib of Adam. She shared Adams genes. There would be no effects from interbreeding because there would be no interbreeding. The genes are the same.

2. In our world today, and with our knowledge, you might be right. In Adam's world where they fell from perfection to imperfection, then your wrong. Diversity would result as soon as we increased in numbers and started our own families away from our parent to allow our genes to be influenced. No, doubt that is why God said; For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother,and be joined to his wife; and they shall becomeone flesh.

[3] Why would you think that I would want to deny the God of atheists, "science". I am a great believer in science because it is its origins come from my Father in Heaven, who has been drip feeding us with discoveries.
#1: LOL. You know men and women HAVe to have different genetics in order to make them male and female right? you know about chromosomes don't you? The genetics determines whether you are a man or a woman. Also, two clones breeding together would cause inbreeding problems.
#2: Well I'm most likely correct. What you're saying is nevermind evolution and science altogher. God created an elaborate hoax to trick scientists that we evolved from apes and that there were always at least a few thousand humans. Furthermore there is no boundary as to when pre homo sapien apes became humans. So what should we go with? Your claims about adam and eve, or the entire scientific community?
#3: Lol God of atheists. You're being childish with that remark. Also nice assertion but there's no proof that God is giving us technology.
You say that because your lifestyle prevents you from receiving His witness. I am just a Child of God who strives to live a Christ like life. God has told everyone what He thinks. He has even compiled a book called the bible where you can read what He thinks.
If you were living a christ like life you wouldn't be on internet writing up pages upon pages of text; you would be out in third world countries saving lives, doing charity work and giving every penny, dime, and nickel you had to others. Then you would be like Jesus.
What on earth are you talking about? I have no clue, other then you are getting exited at the potential of proving me wrong, which is a little unsettling, You obviously see something that is clearly not there. However, please clarify it as I look forward to refuting it and making you look inept.
From you:
"God is Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end, what happens in between He has no control over, so He cannot know who will get Leukemia or who will lose their life in a car accident. All of those things are the result of the choices we make."
From me:
"You just said that all of those things are the result of choices we make and before you were just talking about leukemia. its becomming tedious to remind you about stuff you just said."
So you were talking about leukemia, and then you said "all of those things are the result of choices we make". Therefore you're saying Leukemia is the result of choices we make. I was saying that was complete garbage earlier. Try and jog your memory a little harder. I think you recognize your failure here but you're just going to pretend that you weren't completely rebuted.
Also I'm not excited, what are you talking about? You have some bizarre fantasies about my emotions. That's weird. Anyways, don't try and make yourself look inept in the process.
As I said, your excitement has made you incoherent leaving me clueless as to what your point is.
Clueless seems to be your primary state in this discussion. See above again.
God knows all that there is to know. If it cannot be known then he cannot know it. Simple deductive reasoning.
Again, how much is that? There are an infinite number of things that can be known; like knowing the entire set of numbers. Does God have infinite knowledge then?
1. A big difference from what exactly?
2. How come that the entire Plan of Salvation makes perfect sense to me, who tried for two decades to disprove it in every way possible, yet you cannot make any sense of it. I cannot make any sense without it.
3. Lets put your misrepresentation right. I did not say that God is beaming knowledge/concepts into your brain. Probably from his ftp server. That is your taunt, thought up all by yourself. You are so proud of it that you keep repeating it.
4.You do not have a special connection because you cannot cut it, make the grade, and your comprehension skill are spurious, at best.
5. Thats funny, nobody has ever said that to me, if they ever do it will be an atheist who says it on the grounds that I am a Christian, however, your insults are getting more and more notably personal.
#1. Read what I was responding to and its obvious.
#2. That's just not an argument. Your incredulity simply isn't an argument. If you can't explain it then I would submit you don't understand it.
#3. So what, God isn't beaming knowledge into your head? So he's not putting concepts in your head then? Can you be more consistent. Either he's transferring concepts to you or he isn't. The ftp server is to convey to you how ridiculous it is that god is transferring concepts into your mind.
#4. Here's more of that hypocrisy about ad hominem.
#5. You can't cry about insults if you make them yourself. You've made many to numerous people. Are you familiar with hypocrisy?
3. Yes, God knew that there would be trials and tribulations however, it was our decision and design and it was the only way for us to obtain a body of flesh and blood. It is the Plan of Salvation that was accepted and sanctioned by two thirds of the host of Heaven, including you. You cannot be tried and tested without without opposition so, it is the fault of every single one of us, we are all culpable for that terrorists actions. These statements are what shows your ignorance in Christianity, to the point that it is becoming tiresome to continually have to repeat myself in among you puerile insults.
It wasn't my decision. Where's your evidence that this is true? Is Heaven now a democracy? And it wasn't the only way--i can think of several other possibilities where every person has an equal playing field. You have no clue about Christianity yourself. Your ignorance is astonishing. Nowehre in the bible does it say that human souls game together and decided on our existence. Why don't you try reading an actual bible ok?Have you even read the bible?
1. I think that you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what a Straw Man actually means.

2. Yes you did. You inferred it when you said "if a terrorist sets off a bomb, he isn't responsible because it was the expansion of hot gases that caused the damage, not the terrorist directly." In order for the bomb to be responsible it would have to be fully aware of what it is doing and be able to alter the laws of the universe to stop it from happening if it were it's choice. This is obviously not possible so the terrorist remains the culprit.

3. The state of my health is none of your business. You are being personal, again, in your ad hominem
#1. And there's more hypocrisy. You contradict yourself as you cry about it in point #3. You're incredibly inconsistent and illogical. Now i actually don't care about your use of ad hominem. It doesn't bother me. However its ridiculous to complain about ad homnem, and then, in the same point, you make an ad hominem--this was the thing you just admonishe dme for. You've done this several times now and its quite amusing.
#2. LOL, such weak logic. I was explaining your logic for starters. I was saying "it would be like if" .... Regardless though, nothing in there requires intelligent gas. Responsibility doens't necesserily require intelligence. The meteor that killed the dinosaurs was responsible for the destruction of the dinosaurs but it had no intelligence. Responsibility can refer to moral responsibility or it can refer to the cause that lead to the effect or it could refer to both. You're not very good with nuance are you?
#3 An ad hominem is personal by definition. The fact is thought that it seemed like you were being dishonest with your vast number of fallacies, particularly your large number of strawmen. Also refer to point #1 once again where you contradict yourself.
 

serp777

Well-Known Member
1. The terrorist knows that a bomb will cause suffering and death
2. The terrorist creates the bomb and gets it set up
3. A terrorist sets off a bomb in a crowded area.
4. People are hurt and suffer
5. The terrorist is responsible for the death and suffering. You are repeating what I have said all along. Your story is changing.
6. That's like saying that if a terrorist sets off a bomb, he isn't responsible because it was the expansion of hot gases that caused the damage, not the terrorist directly


Now for God.
1. God knows that creating the universe will cause sufferring and death. Does He? How do you know that? I am not saying that he doesn't but How do you know? You don't believe He exists. He knows that by creating Adam and Eve will cause suffering and death. There would be none if they did not exist.
2. God designs the laws of physics and sets everything off. He Didn't The laws are Eternal. They have always been and will always be. Energy can niether be created or destroyed, a basic scientific principle. If you knew anything about science you would know that Quantum Physics demonstrates that these laws have always existed because the Quantum Field has always existed..
3. God triggers/ is the initial cause of the big bang. Which is undetermined and still a theory, although a theory that works both for science and religion. It might have been spontaneous, it might have been you.
4. People eventually emerge and then are hurt and suffer They are, but by their own choices. Our own choices before we came here and whilst we are here.
5. God is reponsible for the death and suffering. Do, He was acting under our wishes and desires. We all agreed to it, knowing the full consequences of our choice, and wanted it more than anything. It is our fault.
First of all my story remains the same. SHow me how its different.
To address your other "questions"
1. Yes he would. God isn't an idiot. He would be the most intelligent entity in the universe. Your point that I don't believe he exists is still wrong to. Your memory is failing again. I don't know if he exists or not. That's the big difference I was telling you about.
2. The bible says that the Word was God. Then it says he was in the beggining with God, and that all things were made through him, which would include the laws of phyiscs and everything else. Read your bible. I thought you were a Christian? Also where is your source for the evidence that Quantum fields have always existed?
3. You don't even know what the word theory means. In science gravity is a theory. Nothing can be proven absolutely in science since that would require infinite data. Its getting tiring educating you on the basics of science. Also you're not making any sense by saying it might have been me. Im not Jesus or God.
4. No, not always by their own choices. Sometimes a completely innocent child will get leukemia and die horribly without even a well enough developed brain to make a free choice.
5. So you claim but there's no evidence you have shown, and you haven't even demonstrated that's an accepted theological concept in mainstream christianity.
In the New Testament, the Gospel of John begins, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:1-4).
1. Coming from you that is a compliment.

2. I retaliate, however, even my retaliations are nowhere near as disturbingly hateful and personal as yours are. However, I have never said that I am perfect, therefore, I would not deny using Straw Men unintentionally. I would never do it to gain an advantage.

3. You said that alcoholism is genetic. You did not offer any other possibilities, therefore, a reasonable man would naturally assume that is what you meant. Regardless as to what other posters believe, it is not just genetics, it is social conditioning as well.

4. I know that and I have agreed with that on a number of occasions.

5. What did it feel like being proved wrong? Not very nice is it?
Being proved wrong doesn't make me emotional. I'm not so weak that being proved wrong makes me sad and frustrated unlike some people. Furthermore I wasn't proved wrong, but don't get too excited okay? Even if i am wrong you're still like 1 - 100. TO address #3, you seem to forget the fact that I didn't say that it was only genetic. You're worrying about a tiny semantical ambiguity even though i've stated multiple times that the environment and culture was responsible. You're being completely dishonest since you're that desperate to try and prove a point. Lastly, the fact that you take great pleasure in me being wrong means you have
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Continued



1. A big difference from what exactly?

2. How come that the entire Plan of Salvation makes perfect sense to me, who tried for two decades to disprove it in every way possible, yet you cannot make any sense of it. I cannot make any sense without it.

3. Lets put your misrepresentation right. I did not say that God is beaming knowledge/concepts into your brain. Probably from his ftp server. That is your taunt, thought up all by yourself. You are so proud of it that you keep repeating it.

4.You do not have a special connection because you cannot cut it, make the grade, and your comprehension skill are spurious, at best.

5. Thats funny, nobody has ever said that to me, if they ever do it will be an atheist who says it on the grounds that I am a Christian, however, your insults are getting more and more notably personal.​



1. As it happens, I do have a poor memory due to illness, however, I use methods to prevent it. In this case my memory is just fine.

2. What does this mean? "We were talkinga bout God's knowledge of what what happen during the universe " If you write it again for comprehension then I will answer it

3. Yes, God knew that there would be trials and tribulations however, it was our decision and design and it was the only way for us to obtain a body of flesh and blood. It is the Plan of Salvation that was accepted and sanctioned by two thirds of the host of Heaven, including you. You cannot be tried and tested without without opposition so, it is the fault of every single one of us, we are all culpable for that terrorists actions. These statements are what shows your ignorance in Christianity, to the point that it is becoming tiresome to continually have to repeat myself in among you puerile insults.​



1. I think that you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what a Straw Man actually means.

2. Yes you did. You inferred it when you said "if a terrorist sets off a bomb, he isn't responsible because it was the expansion of hot gases that caused the damage, not the terrorist directly." In order for the bomb to be responsible it would have to be fully aware of what it is doing and be able to alter the laws of the universe to stop it from happening if it were it's choice. This is obviously not possible so the terrorist remains the culprit.

3. The state of my health is none of your business. You are being personal, again, in your ad hominem​


1. The terrorist knows that a bomb will cause suffering and death
2. The terrorist creates the bomb and gets it set up
3. A terrorist sets off a bomb in a crowded area.
4. People are hurt and suffer
5. The terrorist is responsible for the death and suffering. You are repeating what I have said all along. Your story is changing.
6. That's like saying that if a terrorist sets off a bomb, he isn't responsible because it was the expansion of hot gases that caused the damage, not the terrorist directly


Now for God.
1. God knows that creating the universe will cause sufferring and death. Does He? How do you know that? I am not saying that he doesn't but How do you know? You don't believe He exists. He knows that by creating Adam and Eve will cause suffering and death. There would be none if they did not exist.
2. God designs the laws of physics and sets everything off. He Didn't The laws are Eternal. They have always been and will always be. Energy can niether be created or destroyed, a basic scientific principle. If you knew anything about science you would know that Quantum Physics demonstrates that these laws have always existed because the Quantum Field has always existed..
3. God triggers/ is the initial cause of the big bang. Which is undetermined and still a theory, although a theory that works both for science and religion. It might have been spontaneous, it might have been you.
4. People eventually emerge and then are hurt and suffer They are, but by their own choices. Our own choices before we came here and whilst we are here.
5. God is reponsible for the death and suffering. Do, He was acting under our wishes and desires. We all agreed to it, knowing the full consequences of our choice, and wanted it more than anything. It is our fault.



Because it is completely illogical and based on your understanding of Christianity and science, which does not appear to be extensive.



Petty puerile provocation.



1. Coming from you that is a compliment.

2. I retaliate, however, even my retaliations are nowhere near as disturbingly hateful and personal as yours are. However, I have never said that I am perfect, therefore, I would not deny using Straw Men unintentionally. I would never do it to gain an advantage.

3. You said that alcoholism is genetic. You did not offer any other possibilities, therefore, a reasonable man would naturally assume that is what you meant. Regardless as to what other posters believe, it is not just genetics, it is social conditioning as well.

4. I know that and I have agreed with that on a number of occasions.

5. What did it feel like being proved wrong? Not very nice is it?
Actually, this poster as well as myself ,gave you fairly decent explanations as to how genetics and environmental conditions/stimuli work together to produce alcoholism. Nobody said "it's purely genetic" and left it at that. Go back and take a look for yourself. I would also suggest reading up a bit on genetics so you know what you're talking about.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Why do you always assume that you are the authority of all knowledge and whatever you say is right? Just because you and serp777 said it does not make it true it just means that both of you are wrong. Alcoholism is not solely down to genetics, there are other factors that contribute towards it development. Research shows that genes are responsible for about half of the risk for alcoholism. If you put it down to be just genetic, as serp777 did, then it is certainly not exactly as you put it. It is way off. You are wrong because genes alone do not determine whether someone will become an alcoholic. Oh, and of course, you didn't like me proving a fellow non-believer wrong and then gloat in order to demonstrate that it is not nice to prove people who think that they are right wrong, just for entertainment. You obviously thought that you could say something that would save any embarrassment.

How do genes influence alcoholism?

Alcoholism often seems to run in families, and we may hear about scientific studies of an “alcoholism gene.” Genetics certainly influence our likelihood of developing alcoholism, but the story isn’t so simple.

Research shows that genes are responsible for about half of the risk for alcoholism. Therefore, genes alone do not determine whether someone will become an alcoholic. Environmental factors, as well as gene and environment interactions account for the remainder of the risk.

Quoted from The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [Click Here]
Because I make a point not to talk about things I'm unfamiliar with. I happen to know a thing or two about alcoholism and addiction. There are many genes that contribute to a person's risk of developing alcoholism. I happen to have some of those genes, in fact.

Please don't provide links and try to explain to me what I just explained to you. Both Serp and I explained it correctly which I why I thought it strange that you were providing a link that said what we had just explained.

Serp did not put it down to "just genetics." Neither did I nor anyone else on this thread. Nobody who understands genetics would say that environmental factors don't have any role to play.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
[1]Do you know what an implication is? [2]Why would I assume that you're talking about some irrelevant person that isn't in this discussion. [3]You're disguising your sentences' ambiguity under a false pretense.

1. Yes, i do. however, there was no implication as I was referring to atheists as a whole and not you as a individual. You obviously associated yourself with the characteristics of those that I was describing.

2. You shouldn't, because I wasn't, I was talking about a group of people, atheists. Again you make unfounded assumptions.​

1. Initially I said: "You have never heard me say that I have heard voices. I always describe it as a exterior source of intelligence that communicates conceptually. So, yet again another misrepresentation or an outright lie."

2. You said "First of all you havent accused me of a lie before, so I don't know why you're saying again."

3. Read what I said. I did not accuse you of lying. I gave it as a possible alternative to misrepresenting me. So when you say that "you havent accused me of a lie before, so I don't know why you're saying again" in response to me saying: "So, yet again another misrepresentation or an outright lie." You were assuming that I meant the latter and not the former. In other words you jumped the gun.

4. However, your whole misunderstanding a tendency to dishonestly misinterpret what I say has all been for no reason as I did not accuse you for either lying or misrepresenting me when I said:"I haven't now. I said "another misrepresentation or an outright lie." I did not say from you. This comprehension thing gets worse."​

3. Ambiguity under a false pretence@ what does that actually mean. Ambiguity is to be uncertain and false pretence is an offense involving intent to defraud and false representation and obtaining property as a result of that misrepresentation, synonyms being infraction, infringement, juris prudence, law, misdemeanor, misdemeanour, offence, violation. So are you saying that I am disguising my sentences' of uncertainty under a violation? Doesn't make sense, does it?​


Yes it does, the alternative is to allow complete ambiguity by confusing how the Holy Ghost communicates. You said "Also saying you know its true because you hear voices from a Ghost isn't an argument." Specifying that I heard. as with my ears, voices. My response is appropriate, I have not heard voices so your words misrepresent me or they are based on a lie. Either Way, it brings your intentions into question on here.

[1] Absurd. Both methods are equally ambiguous, and you haven't demonstrated different levels of ambiguity. [2] And your response isn't appropriate because magic concepts transmitted to your brain isn't any better than hearing voices. [3]It doesn't matter what the method was, you're missing the point.

1. Firstly, you gave three methods and not two. Why would I demonstrate different levels of ambiguity. There is no ambiguity about a communication with the Holy Ghost. It is unmistakably Him.

2. You do not understand what a communication from the Holy Ghost is, as demonstrated by your silly taunt of saying that it is transmitted to your brain. If any Christian said to me that the Holy Ghost communicates to his brain then I would know that he has no communications with the Holy ghost. The Holy Ghost communicate with your soul, your entire being conversing with all the intelligences interwoven with your body. You feel his present and know what He is saying by emotions and feeling that culminate in conceptual suggestion. No words are ever spoken, it is spirit communicating with spirit. It is quite miraculous. But I must cease casting my pearl before swine for it to be trodden under foot. It is not magic because magic is illusional and deceives where as this in unmistakably real almost tangible. That gives credence to my response

3. It does matter what the method is because if you are hearing voices the it could be confused with schizophrenia. It needs to be distinctive in order to make it unique to the Holy Ghost. There can be no ambiguity because that would put doubt in the mind of the recipient. You have never felt the Holy Ghost and my description does not do the reality of it justice, so you would never comprehend the magnitude of drawing on the spirit of God.​

[1] No you haven't demonstrated i have a lack of knowledge. You asserted it based on your own belief system. I also never said you were here to convert so i don't know why you're making such an irrelevant red herring. What is a irrelevant red herring exactly, only a read herring is a hoax

1. No, that is true. You managed to do that without any help from me. Besides, I said "You have already proven your lack of knowledge in Christianity " and not that I have.

2. I asserted what exactly, based on my belief system, that I am in competition with any other belief system, or that you are not well versed to Christianity.

3. I didn't say that you did.​

[1] Half of your arguments rely on faith and apriori beliefs which are in contradiction with the faith and apriori [2] beliefs of scientologists. [3] They can't both be true. [4] Therefore both are equally valid and therefore your faith based arguments are entirely unreliable. [5] I also never said you were seeking popularity. [6] Another misrepresentation of my position--yet another strawman you've attacked.

1. Yes, they would appear like that to you, however, that is because you have never had a witness from the Holy Ghost. If you had then you wouldn't say that. By the way it is "a priori" and not "apriori"

2. I have absolutely no idea what scientologists believe. It is of no concern to me.

3. I cannot give an opinion because I do not know what they believe in, however, I am sure that we could find similarities.

4. Why does it make my belief unreliable if two different religions appear equally valid in your head. You claim to be an atheist yet you conjure up and devise all these scenarios to prove he is a non-existent entity. Just like an atheist would.

5. I didn't say that you were. I was making a statement not an accusation.

6. Your underhanded tactic of using my words against me of the same things that you are, has not gone without notice. Indeed, because you are finding it difficult to use against me you are making a complete hash of it by using them where they don't apply.​



[1] You'll have to rephrase #1 because its incomprehensible. I however recognzie that in these long posts its easy to make mistakes. Everyone makes them.
[2]. Its magical if God is beaming information into your head.
[3]. Well when god is beaming concepts into your head I have no idea of knowing how much knowledge God beamed.

1. I knew that would come back on me because you are incapable of using your own words in defence. I can understand why you do not understand it though. It is a complex exposition.

2. God is not beaming anything into my head. That is your words, not mine.

3. Why do you want to know how much that God knowledge God imparted.​

[1] So basically you give up this argument. This is a surrender. You do have explaining to do. [2] You have to explain how you would recognize the devil. The devil is supposedly a master deciever that everyone is susceptible to.
[3] I mean you recognize how ridiculous your argument is, right? it would be like saying: "I know that you're wrong about everything in this debate. You either believe me or you don't". What was the point of saying this since it isn't even an argument?

1. What do you think I am surrendering to. your overcritical statement suggesting I am completely void of any kind of knowledge that is accurate. That is a very reprehensible personal indictment to make again me. i could not say the same to you because because you are an expert in ad hominem. You said that "Either way you're just so wrong here about everything." to which I quite rightly said "I have no explaining to do. You either believe me or you don't. " because what ever I say, according to you, either way I will be wrong so it is pointless for for me to wear the keys down on my laptop to defend myself against someone that claims that I am wrong on everything. It is a given that you are wrong because nobody exist who is wrong at everything, however, those words spoken to a weak mind individual could have catastrophic consequences. You need to be careful of what you say as it might come back and bite you.

2. Keys are given whereby messengers from beyond the veil may be identified.

1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely:Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—
2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—
7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will notfeel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.
That is exactly what you said. you recognize how ridiculous your argument is, right?

Do you recognise just how insulting you sound when you accuse my argument as being ridiculous when you do not even believe in God or Satan so you have no understanding about what I know and what I don't know. You opinion is based on your disbelief so what would you know about things spiritual?.

You assume that you'd be able to recognize the devil. And your assumptions can clearly be faulty and wrong. They have no reasonable basis .

No, I do not assume, I know because I see him every day in society and have become very aware of him in those I both associate with and those I don't. I would recognise his influence by the Ungodly, rancid, deviously subtle and consummately nefarious in anyone he posses.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Continued

#1. [1]Well it is a debate so i don't know what you're expecting, but it is indeed argumentative along with everything else i've said. If you aren't interested in arguments then why are you in the religious debate section?
#2. [2]Well as far as i'm aware not many people have a hotline to God. Apparently you do with your concept beaming technology or magic or whatever you want to call it.
#3. [3] How else should i describe it? [4]How is it not magical/supernatural? [5] Is God using some brain upload technology thats non magical?

1. Argument is defined as "an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one." whereas debate is defined as "a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote." Basically one is cordial and the other is contentious. Contention is a tool of Satan who thrives on seeing contention flourish.​

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.​

2. I am not going to debate puerile rhetoric that is intended to discredit and belittle. That would be playing into the hands of beelzebub.

3. What is apparent about a fictitious, childish perception of how you envision God communicates with His children and then pass it off on me.

4. Magical infers that it is unreal, a deception, something that is not what it appears to be.

5. That is a question that I will not be answering to because it would mean that I would have to cast my pearl before swine.​

#1. Not according to what you said before.

You have a problem with comprehension.

#2. Another great reason why most of your points rest on an unstable foundation.

Only to those who are non-believers and who have not bean blessed by the testimony of the Holy Ghost, which, according to your post, includes you. will think that. Anyway, better that then being full with unrecognisable rhetoric and vicious insults

#3. According to whom? What evidence do you have that that's true?

I cannot believe that you are so ignorant to basic scientific facts. Have you never heard of one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. Have you heard of cross contamination. Have you heard of the ideal child who mixes with the bad kids and became bad. or have you heard of the saying that if you live with pigs long enough you begin to squeal. Finally, have you not heard that because God is perfect he will become contaminated, tainted if he is exposed and influenced to imperfection. And you are so super intelligent that you ask me for evidence that there is so much of that it is a basic concept to humanity.

#4. Because they make no sense and this thread isn't specifically about Christianity. [2] I never said I would argue within the framework of Christianity. [3] I'm not accepting Christian propositions to be true for the sake of argument. [4] I'll only accept them if you have sufficient reason or evidence to show that they're likely. [5]So far most of your arguments rely on faith and assertions. [6]Worse yet, you've included almost no scriptural quotes to show that your beliefs are actually consistent with Christianity and the bible.

1. No, why would you want to be here amongst posters who believe in a non-existent God and claim that not only is He a magician but He is telepathic as well, or, as you so eloquently put it, beams knowledge into your brain.

2. But you are an agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

3. If you do not accept Christianity to be acceptable then why call yourself an agnostic. Why frequent a place where people believe in the polar opposite to you. Oh, I remember, for entertainment from proving posters wrong.

4 Well, nobody is going to be able to convince you of anything devine. That is for you to seek out and find for yourself.

5. I hadn't notice, however, that is a good thing as faith becomes second nature to christians.

6. It would be futile to waste scriptures on a non-believer who will ridicule their Holy words. Having said that, where appropriate I have left scriptures to bolster my beliefs, you probably do not recognise them.​

#5. I never said I think whatever any Christian says on here is senseless. Yet another strawman. Seriously can you stop misrepresenting what I'm saying? Its not intellectually honest.

There you go again, taking my words and using them against me. Very unethical. Please stop inappropriately calling things that are blatantly and obviously not straw men, straw men. I am getting embarrassed for you because you are so out of kilter.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Because I make a point not to talk about things I'm unfamiliar with. I happen to know a thing or two about alcoholism and addiction. There are many genes that contribute to a person's risk of developing alcoholism. I happen to have some of those genes, in fact.

You know a bit about everything, in my experience, no surprise that you have the alcoholism gene, but I actually do, but you do not show that you know a great deal about alcoholism because you attribute genetics to the cause and that is not true.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Please don't provide links and try to explain to me what I just explained to you. Both Serp and I explained it correctly which I why I thought it strange that you were providing a link that said what we had just explained.

That is exactly why I check your words because you have explained it so I need to get it confirmed because you are frequently wrong and you know all of the standard atheists skulduggery. .

Serp did not put it down to "just genetics." Neither did I nor anyone else on this thread. Nobody who understands genetics would say that environmental factors don't have any role to play.

So, when he said that Alcoholism is caused by genetics he meant genetics and environment. Yea of course he did. Nice to see that you remembered serp777's user id tonight.

Ah, right. that is why you and serp777 didn't mention it. Got Ya
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Actually, this poster as well as myself ,gave you fairly decent explanations as to how genetics and environmental conditions/stimuli work together to produce alcoholism. Nobody said "it's purely genetic" and left it at that. Go back and take a look for yourself. I would also suggest reading up a bit on genetics so you know what you're talking about.

With all due respects, if you, and serp777, who is a lot worse then you are for comprehension, say it is a decent explanation then it probably is not, judging by my previous exchanges with you. I think that although you try to portray yourself as someone who is intellectually astute, and should be listened to, you really need to be a tad more humble and introspective, because you are not what your brain tells you that you are.

You do love to repeat yourself in the hope that repetition of a lie will make it a truth It is called Argument from Repetition Argument from repetition refers to someone repeating a statement often in the hopes that the listener will begin to accept it as truth, instead of providing evidence.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
There certainly are bad things happening, and even to good, innocent, young people. If there is a God, what possible reason is there, why He would let these events occur?

Before This discussion goes any further, keep in mind one thing. Death is nothing but unawareness, a sleep from which no one can awaken on their own, until the Resurrection (John 5:28-29; Job 14:10-13)The Bible says this, about death being sleep. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 146:3-4; John 11:11-13; Acts of the Apostles 7:60; etc., etc.) So, no matter what enduring pain and hurt a person may experience, it **only** will last 70-80 years. (I highlighted the 'only,' because compared to gaining everlasting life, 70 to 80 years is nothing.) And if the pain is too bad, people die sooner. But then they RIP, until they are brought back to life, in the Resurrection that God has promised, even for the unrighteous (Acts of the Apostles 24:15).

Further, God hasn't left us entirely to ourselves. He has given us a book, telling us how He's going to rectify the situation (detailing how it cost Him dearly -- allowing His first-born Son to die, which emphasizes His deep love for us -- John 3:16); and although its teachings may be hard to interpret, His counsel to us on how to treat each other (John 13:34-35; Matthew 5:44; 1 Corinthians 13:4-8; Philippians 2:3-4; etc., etc.), is pretty clear!!!

So why has Jehovah God allowed all of these bad conditions? It started in the Garden of Eden, with a rebel questioning God's right to rule:

http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011331#h=1:0-17:119

More info is available on the same page, if you want to explore this subject in depth.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
What I am here calling the early universe is the universe from its 'birth' in the so-called Big Bang up to the beginning of the period known in cosmology as recombination, when the first hydrogen atoms started to form. The later universe, then, is the universe from the beginning of this period of recombination going forwards.
Oh okay. So ultimately this is Satan's universe?
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering?
Without suffering there is no hope.

3190d61d8fb6696a52c4ba146d45f534.900x448x1.png
That's like saying we need crime, because without crime there'd be no need for law enforcement.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
We are evolving beings. Our physical form is like the cage of a bird and is only temporary. If the cage is destroyed the bird still lives on in another life. We are here at this first stage for our spiritual education and need a body to learn certain lessons like detachment and selflessness. The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is from the womb. Our progress begins here but we will go through many worlds of God and enjoy the bounties of each. We will remember our life here in earth. The choices we make here will affect our journey in other worlds. God wants to share with us His many bounties and gifts and created us to that end.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
“O Son of the Wondrous Vision!

I have breathed within thee a breath of My own Spirit, that thou mayest be My lover. Why hast thou forsaken Me and sought a beloved other than Me?”

“The Hidden Words.”

This sums up why we were created. So God's one motive is love but He doesn't force us to love Him and never will as you can see by the amount of people who turn against His teachings and He doesn't intervene except by sending Teachers and Messiahs offering a better path. But leaves us to take it or not.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Oh okay. So ultimately this is Satan's universe?
No, not the universe....but, according to the Bible, this world is under his control, even Jesus recognized it (John 12:31; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9). (I mean, just think about it: people told that, by committing suicide and killing others in the process, they're doing God's will? Or that, how to get rid of AIDS, they need to have sex with virgins? Men are being influenced by evil, invisible forces). No wonder the Scriptures counsel Christians to avoid the world! (James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17) It's not going to last forever ( 1 John 3:8; Matthew 6:9-10; Revelation 21:3-4).
 
Last edited:

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
No, not the universe....but, according to the Bible, this world is under his control, even Jesus recognized it (John 12:31; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9). (I mean, just think about it: people told that, by committing suicide and killing others in the process, they're doing God's will? Or that, how to get rid of AIDS, they need to have sex with virgins? Men are being influenced by evil, invisible forces). No wonder the Scriptures counsel Christians to avoid the world! (James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17) It's not going to last forever ( 1 John 3:8; Matthew 6:9-10; Revelation 21:3-4).

The problem with a literal view of Satan as an individual other than the perpetrator is that it shifts responsibility and blame away from the culprit who should be held to account and answerable for his misdeeds. No one but ourselves should be held responsible so that we are faced with the fact we must reform. It's easy to go into denial and blame these things on a monster devil but basically humanity has turned away from God and so has become enmeshed in selfish desires and violent ways and it has only itself to blame no third party.
 
Top