Posted on 01/11/2024 4:58:02 PM PST by Enterprise
The clot shot was not natural.
In fact, it was a low IQ attempt to replace the mechanism created by God.
Clots from sports injuries are not observed to be a significant cause of death.
“The clot shot was not natural.”
The body’s reaction to it, was.
“In fact, it was a low IQ attempt to replace the mechanism created by God.”
Well, if God created life, and thus created Man; God must also have created what makes life and what makes Man. And that would include any ability of life to adapt.
Life adapts to its environment, and finds ways to survive in that environment, and even to thrive.
Man is a great example of that.
So, if Man develops something that enables him to not only survive, but to pretty much defeat things that threaten that survival, Man is just using the tools that God provided him.
So, your claim that Man’s “low IQ” attempt to survive is somehow an insult to God is interesting. But, you are finding fault with the wrong party. If a creation breaks, or malfunctions, is it the fault of the creation or of the creator? The creation can only function within the parameters of its construction; and the creator is solely responsible for that construction and the parameters established.
“Clots from sports injuries are not observed to be a significant cause of death.”
And neither are clots from the jab. Sensationalism notwithstanding.
I didn’t say it was an insult to God. I said nothing like that. What I said was it was an attempt to replace what God made.
You seem to be sincere in your attitude and your participation in this discussion, and as such this truly might be an opportunity for you to gain knowledge. I certainly won’t reject any new knowledge you might provide for me.
Here’s what I will give you: if you desire to contemplate and to analyze the integrity of God’s creation, you need to understand the full picture. I’m sure you agree with this in principle.
The full picture is God’s creation allowed for the free will of his created beings, which led to the actions of Lucifer and to what happened in the Garden. Sin caused the entire creation to come into what’s known as a “fallen” state, which introduced things like imperfection, destruction and death. The human body in the presence of sin is imperfect and has no intrinsic mechanism to overcome destruction and death.
“I didn’t say it was an insult to God. I said nothing like that.”
Oh, but you did. You in essence said that God created imperfection; and thus, God himself must be imperfect. Remember, God created Man “in His own image.”
You mention “free will.” Well, if God gave Man “free will,” then how the hell can God condemn Man for using that which God has given him? Free will assumes coming to conclusions; and some of those conclusions may disagree with God. But, by bestowing upon Man free will, God must necessarily accept those disagreements. Or, why give Man free will in the first place? If God demanded of his creations absolute conformity and obedience, He would have created them to do just that, and not have given them the ability to do otherwise.
I mean, why would God create something he knows will — in His eyes — fail? And, that failure is offensive to the God that created it. Thus, God doesn’t want his creations to think for themselves, and draw their own conclusions; rather, He insists upon compliance and demands obedience! He gave Man free will and then persecutes him for using it? That’s sadism. No benevolent God would do such a thing.
“You seem to be sincere in your attitude and your participation in this discussion, and as such this truly might be an opportunity for you to gain knowledge.”
How condescending of you. What you really mean is, an opportunity to think as you do.
“…if you desire to contemplate and to analyze the integrity of God’s creation, you need to understand the full picture.”
Ah; the full picture. And that understanding is something you possess? Are you that omniscient? That god-like?
“The full picture is God’s creation allowed for the free will of his created beings…”
Ah; so ALL of God’s creatures (created beings) are blessed with free will? I guess that would explain the many extinctions over the eons: Those creatures used their free will and “close poorly.”
“… which led to the actions of Lucifer and to what happened in the Garden.”
Which necessarily means that God created Lucifer, along with all the other untold billions of creatures and life forms. For what purpose did God create Lucifer? To torment the other creatures? To trick them? Because, if Genesis is to be believed, the Garden was not just the playground of Adam and Eve, it was the playground of EVERY form or life; where every form of life lived together, in harmony. Or, were only SOME forms of life allotted the privilege of living in the Garden? If that were the case, I can bet that those who were not fortunate enough to know the password for entry were pissed, and wanted some answers as to why they had been denied that code.
“Sin caused the entire creation to come into what’s known as a ‘fallen’ state, which introduced things like imperfection, destruction and death.”
But, how can this be? If, prior to “the fall” all creatures (in your words, the “entire creation”) were perfect, indestructible, and immortal (i.e., like God); then they were necessarily on a par WITH God: No more; no less. How is it possible, then, that God – outnumbered by untold millions of creatures, all His equals — got over on that mighty host and made them imperfect, destructible, and mortal; and He alone escaped the carnage?
And, sin? Well, obviously, sin can only result from free will; which God bestowed on all creatures, making them His equals. So, sin must also have afflicted God himself. Thus, any punishments and condemnations directed towards all those fallen creatures must necessarily be directed to God, as well.
Don’t you see the contradictions?
How condescending of you, but not surprising.
P.S. — I know what the “special” words and abbreviations you post mean, I just don’t use them in some sort of “better/smarter than thou” way when I post to my fellow Freepers.
Your assumption of condescension is exactly that. Your assumption. It seems that you feel necessary to point out your feelings toward a post instead of offering an answer to it. How enlightened.
Try to make your replies more concise. One of the benefits of this is it facilitates a better understanding of what you’re trying to say. I think you don’t see the incoherence in you final six or seven paragraphs.
Meanwhile, these simple and concise statements will help clarify the discussion:
God did not create imperfection. He created beings with free will. That they have the power of choice is a more perfect creation than if they didn’t have it.
Their choice to do evil is intrinsic to them, not to God. This is not difficult to understand. If it’s not intrinsic to them, then it’s not free will.
God’s victory over evil is global and eternal. Failures due to sin are local and temporal. The global nature of his victory includes total compensation for any imperfection in the temporary state of fallenness.
To do evil is to need punishment. This is not sadism. It’s justice. Remember, the evil is intrinsic to the one who chooses it. Failure to punish evil is imperfect justice.
“God did not create imperfection. He created beings with free will. That they have the power of choice is a more perfect creation than if they didn’t have it.”
Nice try.
If God created Man, he created imperfection.
You have said Man is imperfect. God created Man in his own image. Therefore, God must be imperfect.
Elementary logic.
“Their choice to do evil is intrinsic to them, not to God. If it’s not intrinsic to them, then it’s not free will.”
You contradict yourself. If God created Man in his own image, than God must have evil, just as Man does. Just as with free will: God has free will and gave Man free will (i.e., God gave Man what God has, as Man was made in his image).
So, if evil is intrinsic to Man, it must necessarily also be intrinsic to God.
Evil is a religious concept that led to the concept of morality. Human societies embrace that morality as it is determined by the respective religions; and that morality gives rise to laws, both religious and secular; and thus judgment. What one considers moral in one religion, or one society, may be seen as immoral in another religion and another society.
That is why any specific religion must be kept from holding any secular power. Because SERIOUS evil can result.
So, you see, the concept of God as perfect is a contradiction if God created Man in his own image.
No, you’re wrong. The word “image” doesn’t mean “precise duplication.” If it did, then humankind would be the Creator of the universe.
Understanding the distinction between Creator and creation is critical here.
Meanwhile, you suggest the concept of evil is not objective, and then you go on to use it as though it is objective. Maybe you don’t understand what I mean?
Since the foundation of your argument appears to be scripture (meaning, the Old and New Testaments), you should be aware that Genesis 1:26 says “image and likeness.” That is duplication.
There is an assumption – a logical one – that someone or something must be the original Creator; in other words, the universe, life, etc. did not just develop spontaneously; there had to be a source, a catalyst.
But, you run into trouble when you assign actions to someone or something that you have no evidence are responsible for those actions.
If your premise assumes that God did indeed create the universe; what is your evidence of that? Is it that same scripture? Which was written by Man? Scripture is a wealth of contradictions. If your God is the God of scripture, you have a lot of explaining to do.
There are other religions and beliefs that claim that THEIR deities created the universe, or life, or both; and do not assert that Man was created in the image and likeness of their deities. You assume that your claim is the right one. So, trot out your proof of that, as well.
Because, as has been said by philosophers and scientists for millennia, a claim that can be made without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence. If your evidence is scripture, then you are in trouble.
In summary: Your belief may be right for YOU; it does not mean that it is FACT, or is right for others.
One of the most prominent intellectual errors of our day is in the belief system often called “evidentialism,” which describes a conviction that knowledge can only be attained through sensory experience of concrete details.
The error is that this system ignores the function of intuition, which is where the bulk of our knowledge originates. Intuition is closely related, if not equivalent to what philosophers call “properly basic belief.”
For example, your belief that the objects in front of you are real, rather than hallucinations, is properly basic. But you can’t prove, to yourself or to anyone else, that those objects are not hallucinations.
Belief that God created everything is properly basic. And contrasting beliefs are historically quite rare. In fact, atheism itself, though still uncommon, didn’t gain a following of higher than 1% of the world population until men like Darwin and Freud came along with what were essentially fairly weak intellectual foundations which had to be sold through prominence of stature and personality rather than strength of argument.
The only reason anyone claims not to believe in the traditional God is in their desire to make their own rules. If they were to admit God is real, then they would have to deal with God’s moral law.
“One of the most prominent intellectual errors of our day is in the belief system often called ‘evidentialism,’ which describes a conviction that knowledge can only be attained through sensory experience of concrete details.”
Actually, what you just described is empiricism. And empiricism has been and still is a valuable approach to theoretical hypotheses and proving or disproving same. But empiricism by itself can only take us so far (and sometimes that is all that is necessary), as it is pretty much limited to the physical. Empiricism does not suggest that it is the final word; it recognizes that its conclusions are based upon known stimuli and observable influences.
You mention “intuition.”
“One of the most prominent intellectual errors of our day is in the belief system often called ‘evidentialism,’ which describes a conviction that knowledge can only be attained through sensory experience of concrete details.”
Actually, what you just described is empiricism. And empiricism has been and still is a valuable approach to theoretical hypotheses and proving or disproving same. But empiricism by itself can only take us so far (and sometimes that is all that is necessary), as it is pretty much limited to the physical. Empiricism does not suggest that it is the final word; it recognizes that its conclusions are based upon known stimuli and observable influences.
You mention “intuition.” That is nothing but an instinctive feeling, or sense; it does not require any conscious thought or reasoning process: It is often called a “gut feeling” (i.e., without any deliberation at all). Sans any measurable or provable evidence, that feeling is just that: a feeling experienced without rhyme or reason. You may just as well try and catch the wind.
“Belief that God created everything is properly basic.”
It’s obviously basic to YOU. To many others; not so much.
“In fact, atheism itself, though still uncommon, didn’t gain a following of higher than 1% of the world population until men like Darwin and Freud came along with what were essentially fairly weak intellectual foundations which had to be sold through prominence of stature and personality rather than strength of argument.”
Yeah, because it has been the easy way out for Man to explain the unknown by putting the responsibility on to someone or something greater than himself. Primitive Man knew no better; that’s why he created so many deities and had so many varied beliefs. And modern Man still does.
“The only reason anyone claims not to believe in the traditional God is in their desire to make their own rules. If they were to admit God is real, then they would have to deal with God’s moral law.”
What traditional God? You are talking about YOUR traditional God, which may not be the same God much of the planet recognize. So, who are you to say that YOUR God is the one and only? It is your BELIEF; and you have FAITH that your BELIEF is right.
I forget who first said it, but what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. In other words, it is up to he or she who makes the claim to prove their claim; it is not up to someone else to disprove it. For instance, that is the very foundation of our judicial system here in the US.
Your profile page suggests that you subscribe to the Christian religion. If that works for you, that’s great. But recognize that there are billions of people on this planet who disagree with you; and, that’s great, too…for THEM.
Because religion is personal, and should be kept as such. And religion – of whatever stripe or denomination or belief – MUST be kept from holding political power.
In any event, the God of the Old Testament is not the God described in the New. So, if you take scripture, and the totality of the Bible as your ideal, you have to reconcile that.
But the God of the New Testament states in that document that he’s the God of the Old Testament.
It’s only your imagination that leads you to a different conclusion.
Here’s an intelligence test for you: If your reference to particular parts of Biblical text presumes to validate it, then it’s logically incoherent to consider other parts randomly invalid.
As for the value of intuition, Richard Feynman himself described it as a product of multiple, repeated experiential events. In other words, it’s a step up from simple empiricism. Intuition is the foundation of scientific hypothesis. But the low IQ cabal has devised an educational and social system which teaches us to disregard intuition. My advice to you is use your intuition.
“It’s only your imagination that leads you to a different conclusion.”
Not at all. If the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New, that God is a schizo.
“Here’s an intelligence test for you: If your reference to particular parts of Biblical text presumes to validate it, then it’s logically incoherent to consider other parts randomly invalid.”
Nice try. There are historical aspects of the Bible that do track with known and accepted history. But because those elements are validated by historical scholarship it does not imply that those elements that are NOT so validated are supportable.
“As for the value of intuition, Richard Feynman himself described it as a product of multiple, repeated experiential events. In other words, it’s a step up from simple empiricism.”
No, it’s actually the opposite; so I have my doubts that Feynman said that intuition is a step UP from empiricism. Please provide me with his quote that said that; a link or source would be nice. Because Feynman was a rationalist, and could not abide pedants. Remember, he said that if one can’t explain one’s subject simply, one does not understand one’s subject.
Do you even have a clue as to what intuition is? It’s a feeling drawn without any conscious experience or rational thought process. That’s why it’s called a “sixth sense,” or a “gut feeling.”
I think you are confusing “intuition” with “intuitiveness,” but they are most assuredly NOT the same thing. Now, INTUITIVENESS can result from empiricism; but INTIUITION cannot. So, either you are confused, or you are a bullshitter (which you have shown yourself to be on previous threads).
Yet, you seem convinced of your beliefs, to the point of zealotry (which could explain your filling your profile age with religion and scripture). Do you want to know what Feynman said about that kind of thing? I found this quote of his: “Looking back at the worst times, it always seems that they were times in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent with their own beliefs in order to maintain that what they said was true.”
Peddle your snake oil somewhere else; I’m not buying.
When you look at what’s in front of your eyes, you see the products of work proving the existence of a worker.
Your desk proves a deskmaker, your shirt a shirtmaker, your car a car maker, your software a programmer, and so on.
On a larger scale, everything is evidence of the Creator.
Those who deny their Creator have only one reason. It is not a rational thought process but a simple trade-off: they don’t want to follow God’s rules so they lie to themselves and others, saying “God doesn’t exist.”
Those who deny the Creator, sensing they need to fix the problem of cosmology caused by this denial, insult themselves further with the logically incoherent idea that “things created themselves.”
The statement from Feynman was given to me by a man who worked with him. As for the terms “intuitiveness” vs “intuition,” I would caution against falling into a worthless discussion of semantics.
“Those who deny their Creator have only one reason. It is not a rational thought process but a simple trade-off: they don’t want to follow God’s rules so they lie to themselves and others, saying ‘God doesn’t exist.’”
Nice try, kid. Rational thought would insist on some proof; and a conclusion based on assumption (which is what you have done) is not proof. You WANT something to be so; thus, it IS so. That is an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And, God’s rules? What rules? And which God? YOUR God? You have no evidence whatsoever that your God or anyone’s God actually set forth rules. All you have — or anyone has — is what MAN has claimed to be divine rules or laws.
You’d be better off championing the laws of nature or, on a more personal level, natural laws; because there is at least scientific evidence of the former and cultural evidence of the latter.
“Those who deny the Creator, sensing they need to fix the problem of cosmology caused by this denial, insult themselves further with the logically incoherent idea that ‘things created themselves.’”
That’s nonsense and you know it. Even Kant and Schopenhauer — and, yes, even Nietzsche — didn’t suggest such a thing. They — especially Nietzsche — had issues with the CHRISTIAN God; but none of them denied a source of creation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.