What if..... - Page 3

Look, again your saying that the devil's influence has power over god's influence.

The problem still not being addressed is that this is all god's work or he isn't all powerful. This argument is pointless untill addressing what it means to be all powerful and what other possibilities are allowed to exist under those circumstances.

And since this god idea is completely speculative if not completely made up people can't answer the question of a god purpose or answer to his all powerfullness question, and without answering that people just jump to the next question and then just make up, guess, speculate or even try to formulate an appropriate answer to the rest of the questions in life.

Can you see we are asking different questions? Mine deals with the root, yours is referring to causes that have assumed answers to my root question.

You are talking about right and wrong, I'm asking how any of the developed ideas of right and wrong hold any water if the source idea of them does not.

Your talks of choice and instinct, right and wrong decisions are relative to a belief based on contradictory information concerning the very declarations of right and wrong.

quote:

---

Look, again your saying that the devil's influence has power over god's influence.

---

visit site- http://www.scripturessay.com/angels8.html

11. Therefore did God directly or indirectly create evil? No!
Is there an answer to this riddle? Try this.

1. EVIL IS AN AUTONOMOUS FORCE. This means that evil did not have to be created.
2. It is a contrasting force which operates spontaneously and independently.
3. Paul said sin was revived in him because the law defined right and wrong. Rom 7:9
4. He also said that "sin entered the world". Rom 5:12
1. Where was it before?
2. The only logical answer is it has existed all the time and is independent and operates in contrast to God's goodness.
5. Rom 7:17-21 declares that "sin is present" in man.
6. These contrasting forces wage war within us. Rom 7:23
7. If man did not have God to help him survive (escape) 1 Cor 10:13 & Rom 7:24-25, then the contrasting force of evil would overcome the good force of God.
8. In other words, without God, man would tend to lean toward evil rather than good, dispelling the world's age old concept that "man is basically good".
9. Notice how large populations reacted to evil without God:
1. In the Flood. Gen 6:5
2. At Sodom and Gomorah. Gen 13:13
10. Evil begets evil. Lk 6:39 & 1 Cor 15:33

That goes against and redefines the entire biblical claim. SO WHICH IS IT?

Is god all powerful and the creator of the universe and all that it holds or not?

If there is an equal and opposing force to god and god's ideas, then all god's ideas are now relative, making them neither good nor bad, right or wrong. And for the balance of the universe to exist then evil must exist and must be partaken in. It must have followers. And not for the "good" people to go out and kill either. Because that is against god's laws for man.

Bible quotes do nothing to make an argument for the bible, because they are self serving and therefore irrelevant, they are going to say that the bible is right, and if you believe the bible you will believe it, regardless of whether it makes sense or is contradictory, which it is, as you have just shown again.

quote:

---

That goes against and redefines the entire biblical claim. SO WHICH IS IT?

---

i want to ask the same thing. WHICH CLAIM (or whose claim rather)? does it question the religious authority's stance? think for yourself.....question authority *smiles*

i know you mean the Bible's claim, but how do you know WHAT the bible claims? Have you Cross Refrenced the contents to its entirety? that way we can make sure one vers is not flipantly used to substantiate and refute the same claim. Remember: "Truth comes from "exegesis" or reading out of scripture, not "eisegesis" reading into scripture."

quote:

---

Is god all powerful and the creator of the universe and all that it holds or not?

---

quote:

---

Bible quotes do nothing to make an argument for the bible, because they are self serving and therefore irrelevant

---

are you using a refrence to scripture to substantiate its falsehood?


free will chooses between opposing forces.

quote:

---

If there is an equal and opposing force to god and god's ideas, then all god's ideas are now relative,

---

i didn't say they were equal. and in the second link it points out that only in the abscence of (or lack of focus on) god is the other more powerful / prevalent.

does that contradict, or clarify?

i'm gonna go out on a limb here and bet that this info, like the rest, is either substantiating or refuting....

depending on your P.O.V.

oh yes, and about things being relative.

especially concerning science... also in relation to the bible, in that

WE-the interpreters

take the template of our earth and all its fullness (as well as space and what we can observe of it)

take the template of the bible and all its fullness.

science explains -through interpretation of observations-
everything to do within those observations pertaining to the "earth"

religion explains -through reading text and somehow comparing it to their lives- everything to do with anything, including science

science is and has been constantly changing -since being recorded- on its beliefs

and as we know, there are more religious beliefs than you can throw a stick at

so if we are going to BELIEVE that science can explain everything
(even though its stance has been changed dramatically on different levels throughout the ages)

How is that different in believing in a book that on many levels speaks of science proven knowledge?

Those points on which it disagrees or contradicts itself are SELF EVIDENT in that it is written in black and white for you to clearly see... and point out.

The bible isn't being rewritten (so to speak) throughout the ages.
granted the translation between languages misconstrued the initial message to a degree.

Likewise however... the earth, gravity, orbit around the sun, electricity, magnetism, etc. etc. have been there all along...

science rewrites its book through a series of advancing viewpoints.

religions rethink their viewpoints through a series of advancing interpretations as well as observations, but they have no way to rewrite the book.

in both cases fallacies arise.

most often when recognised in the scientific community that old viewpoint is discarded as well as anything that was supported by its claim.

not so much in the religious community...

About science that contradicts current or even non-traditional stances on the bible-

I made the point that science is ever changing... one step forward, two steps back,- sometimes vice versa.... so to say that because you are complete in the knowledge that reveals certain claims to be lies, well, many of you have made points about the danger in "knowing you know".

The bible contradicts itself. It even consists of two differing sets of SET moral values. I don't need to claim to know anything, it claims its own truth and then dashes it all by istelf, I'm just taking notice.

Science is not a claimed knowledge of any final answers. The bible is.

Science accepts the inadequacies of its writers, the bible does not.

You seem to think science is claiming something, it is claiming possiblilities or probabilities, those are not actual claims of knowing. Semantics is what you are basically arguing if you are comparing science and religion. One is living to seek answers in light of not having them, the other is claiming to have answers and trying to live by them.

No one is claiming to know except religion.