Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
Then why did you say I hadn't provided the Biblical passage?
(Besides, a link has already been posted that explains it. Did you somehow MISS it?
There are all the posts I could find that seem to have any bearing on Junior's post: 1550 1563 1564 1565. Did I miss one?, because these look more like stalls than answers to me. I found no links, so I suppose someone other than you posted said link?
Not out of control. An analogy: My daughter has been doing stupid things of late. I regret what she's doing to herself, but she is an adult and I will not interfere in her life; she has to make her own choices. I don't love her any less, though. Do you pray to this God? According to your theology he won't answer your prayers anyway.
I pray every day. It doesn't matter that He won't answer my prayers (God is not some magic "gimme" machine) -- I don't pray for anything to come to me anyway. It is simply a comfort knowing He's there. It's the same benefit I offer to my daughter. She can dump on me whenever she wants and I'll listen and be there for her. As adults that's all we really need most of the time.
Methinks your average Christian takes the "child of God" sobriquet far too seriously. It gives him or her an excuse never to mature spiritually. Sure, he or she may claim otherwise, but will still act like a fearful child in the presence of a vengefull father. Like any parent, though, God wants His children to grow up and stand on their own feet.
Nice that you simply blew off the rest of the post and centered on a single word. Of course, you're hoping no one else noticed, I'm sure.
\ For the same reason Moslems must defend what's in the Koran.
The God you described earlier could not care whether or not you grow up, since all he did was set in motion "nature" eons ago and he has done nothing since, except to regret the inevitable loss of every life which sprung from his "creation."
The problem you have with your God is that your God is not based upon anything other than your own unique imagination. In that sense God did not create you in His image, but you created God in your image.
Thus when you "worship" this God you are only paying homage to yourself, since you are the creator of this unique imaginary creature you call God.
BTW the one true and living God does answer prayers. Whether you like it or not he is actively intervening in your life. The fact that you are sitting here typing and not feeding the worms right now is a testament to his longsuffering and mercy. We have all sinned and we are all worthy of the death that will inevitably overtake us someday. You owe your very existence to him and him alone.
Thank him.
Proof positive your reading comprehension is sub-par. Do you care whether your children grow up?
Stalls? From Elsie? I'm shocked and surprised.
Very eloquent insight, IMO.
No, it wasn't; it was a slander, disguised as one.
Which the detractors take as the OUTER most dimension, which illustrates their point that the writer didn't know his PI from a hole in the ground!
If the material was something less strong as bronze, then the thickness would have been greater than a 'handbeardth', making the outer dimension even greater.
However, anyone would know that it's the INNER dimension that is needed, to hold a certain VOLUMN of liquid.
To say otherwise shows a need to 'prove the bible wrong' for some reason or another.
yes. Aren't you reading ALL the things going on in this thread??
It would've been nearly 35 cm (13.5" for you luddites) thick to match the dimensions, interior and exterior. Bronze is tougher than iron, but not as tough as steel -- and it masses about 9 tonnes per cubic meter. The walls would not need to be nearly so thick. IOW, a lot more bronze went into the building of that sea than was absolutely necessary, if you are correct.
Nice that you simply blew off the rest of the post and centered on a single word. Of course, you're hoping no one else noticed, I'm sure.
And just what 'reason' is that?
Insight?
Defend YOUR statement! You who are NOT afraid of your god!
So?
13.77952756 for the rest of your normal people with a calculator...
Fine, declare what tangible evidence you use to presuppose standards of naturalism and I will get back to you. Are you really so dense as not to understand the question?
By the way, one does not "presupposition." A presupposition is an "a priori" assumption one brings to the table. One "presupposes" certain things and adopts them usually without critical analysis. It is like a fish being unaware of the medium in which it swims (to quote another). This is why the modern technocrats splutter so angrily when they are challenged on this issue, and continue to recite the same old cant about science dealing with the observable and quantifiable, as if this were a new vantage point that was heretofore unacknowledged. Naturalistic assumptions are not a part of science, but are simply the philosophical a prioris of many modern scientists.
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.