08 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesDude, you don't need to attempt to identify every argument you think is being used against you. A little further up the page I asked you a couple of questions, and I'm pretty sure I didn't insult you or anything. Now, are you only here to throw your toys out of the pram and scream the injustice, or do you want to answer my questions?
Ad hominem, and Poisoning the Well. Unimpressive.
08 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoctorScribbles talking about "poisoning the well" ???
[b]Ad hominem, and Poisoning the Well. Unimpressive.
Employing ad hominem arguments is a privilege you earn when become smart enough to recognize when you are arguing with a fool.[/b]
AHHHhhHHHHHHHHHHAAAA LOL !!!! ROFL
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesForget about the well, Scribbles!
[b]Ad hominem, and Poisoning the Well. Unimpressive.
Employing ad hominem arguments is a privilege you earn when become smart enough to recognize when you are arguing with a fool.[/b]
Son, you poison the whole durn countryside!
ROFL !! AHhaaa AHHHHA !
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by TheSkipperNo indignation here.
Dude, you don't need to attempt to identify every argument you think is being used against you. A little further up the page I asked you a couple of questions, and I'm pretty sure I didn't insult you or anything. Now, are you only here to throw your toys out of the pram and scream the injustice, or do you want to answer my questions?
I have some errands to run before I go to work, after which I will be sure to address your questions.
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by rwingettIt's not true that I have no interest in your arguments. If I gave you that impression, I sincerely apologize. In this thread, however, I've been called to defend a certain position, and I'm doing that. I do agree, though, that if you have no interest in what I'm saying, then this discussion is probably quite pointless for you.
You have no interest in anything I say, and I have no interest in anything you say. It's a pointless discussion.
08 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesYour belief system is incoherent. Plus you have failed to address two rather important points:
Free will does not entail freedom from judgment.
1) How were the many massacres of infants and children done at God's command in the OT consistent with ANY concept of "free will" resulting in "judgment"?
2) If the name of Amalek was supposed to be wiped from memory, how come we're still talking about it? OT Monster God screwed up, didn't he?
Plus I like how you cite to recent phony recent translations to escape theological problems. This is, of course, the purpose of these translations.
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesOne time when I traveled to Washington D.C., I saw this homeless woman in the park who was preaching about Jesus. If you tried to engage her in conversation she would ignore you and keep on delivering her intended speech. You remind me of her.
It's not true that I have no interest in your arguments. If I gave you that impression, I sincerely apologize. In this thread, however, I've been called to defend a certain position, and I'm doing that. I do agree, though, that if you have no interest in what I'm saying, then this discussion is probably quite pointless for you.
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesTo be clear: you genuinely believe that if God showed up in the middle of the Amalekite's camp,
A display of God's power doesn't guarantee anything.
demonstrated His invulnerability and mightiness, demonstrated the penalties that defiance would
result from disobedience, and offered His had in friendship, you think the Amalekites would say
'No.' Correct?
Nemesio
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesHow can free will exist?
[b]To punish them for exercising the free will you supposedly gave them is madness. Your god is a psychopath.
God does not punish people for exercising free will. The exercising of one's free will can take on many forms: deciding to buy a green car instead of a red one; buying a Mac instead of a PC; spontaneously deciding to dance down th ...[text shortened]... ctly sane to offer a way out of judgment. Charles Manson is a psychopath; Jesus Christ is not.[/b]
Surely, an act of will, like an event, is either determined by antecedent conditions, or it is not determined by antecedent conditions.
If the former, then the act must have occurred, there having been no other options; and if there were no other options, then one can hardly been held responsible for choosing the option that one did chose.
If the latter, then nothing determined it, so it occurred for no reason whatsoever; and if it occurred for no reason, then it cannot have been a rational act, meaning that one cannot be held responsible for it either.
Hence, either way, free will does not exist.
Now, if free will does not exist, it cannot be given as a gift. Hence, your whole case falls apart.
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesI find some of your replies interesting and instructive.
It's not true that I have no interest in your arguments. If I gave you that impression, I sincerely apologize. In this thread, however, I've been called to defend a certain position, and I'm doing that. I do agree, though, that if you have no interest in what I'm saying, then this discussion is probably quite pointless for you.
Be encouraged because this can be a rude group.
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by NemesioThat's exactly what the Israelites did, isn't it? When God displayed His power before them, they just hid their faces. At the first opportunity they built a golden calf for an idol, despite seeing the Red Sea part and despite witnessing the glory of God with their own eyes. The Israelites were merely slaves to the Egyptians, while the Amalekites were a nation which practiced idolatry, child-sacrifice, demon-worship, and witchcraft as a way of life. One could make the case that the Amalekites were the more heard-hearted of the two peoples. So, yes, I don't think it is inconceivable that the Amalekites would say, "No."
To be clear: you genuinely believe that if God showed up in the middle of the Amalekite's camp,
demonstrated His invulnerability and mightiness, demonstrated the penalties that defiance would
result from disobedience, and offered His had in friendship, you think the Amalekites would say
'No.' Correct?
Nemesio
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesSo their babies deserved having spears stuck through their heads. Correct?
That's exactly what the Israelites did, isn't it? When God displayed His power before them, they just hid their faces. At the first opportunity they built a golden calf for an idol, despite seeing the Red Sea part and despite witnessing the glory of God with their own eyes. The Israelites were merely slaves to the Egyptians, while the Amalekites were ...[text shortened]... o peoples. So, yes, I don't think it is inconceivable that the Amalekites would say, "No."
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI think you are presenting a false dilemma. Let's say, like the soldier in Johnny Got His Gun, you find yourself in a situation where you have no arms, legs, ears, face, etc. Though, unlike the character in that novel, you are unable to communicate by Morse Code with anyone. If these are the antecedent conditions within you must live, what freedom might you have left? Is there a freedom which is independent of antecedent conditions, yet not irrational? I would venture to say that you're last freedom is the will to meaning. You could choose to find meaning in your plight and endure it with an altogether different attitude, or you could choose to wallow in despair and misery without hope.
How can free will exist?
Surely, an act of will, like an event, is either determined by antecedent conditions, or it is not determined by antecedent conditions.
If the former, then the act must have occurred, there having been no other options; and if there were no other options, then one can hardly been held responsible for choosing the option ...[text shortened]... , if free will does not exist, it cannot be given as a gift. Hence, your whole case falls apart.