And that all occurred through pure happenstance, eh?
The answer, of course, is no. Don't be silly.
Posted on 08/21/2005 1:18:04 AM PDT by MRMEAN
"Where'd God get His instructions and apples from?"
That's your answer as to how Adam and Eve having the knowledge of Good and Evil would make them better then God? At least address the point. At best it would make them his equal, at least when it came to moral knowledge.
""Who could have tempted Him?
Did you forget, God was a man. "
Again, How could God the Man sin against himself? Who is going to tell Him he sinned? Who is going to do anything about it? The whole idea of God being tempted is preposterous.
Your posts are getting more and more surreal.
Placemarker
Same here. Nice post and good observaitons.
I ask where did God get His moral knowledge from: "Where'd God get His instructions and apples from?" You see, He could have come up with any moral code. He came up with one in particular. He could have created slaves and gave them no choice, or puppets for some arbitrary entertainment. He did nothing like that. He gave them life and Free will.
You still don't understand Free will. Free will means you have and retain sovereignty over your own will. It means the foundational values that are chosen by the individual, to found his decisions and actions on are gathered by that individual alone, not by anyone else whatsoever. Had these values been inherent, there would be no Free will whatsoever.
"Again, How could God the Man sin against himself?"
The reference of what makes sin is the absolute moral code that protects life, Freedom and rights. The reference is not a person, even if that person is God. The reference is the moral code and the values held.
"Who is going to tell Him he sinned? "Who is going to do anything about it?""
John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Some folks say this means God applies some sort of irresistable force that causes folks to be drawn to Him. It does not. It is the recognition of the moral code and actions of God as good that causes the draw. The same as any rational judgement of beauty and good. The fact is that the individual gathers his own values and makes his own choices. Those values are what the individual's judgements are founded on. Including the individual's judgement of God and the moral code God came up with.
Notice that irresistable force some folks say God applies, is what you are insisting on. They say man is desperately wicked w/o it and when God choses to apply it, they become good, regenerate, whatever. However, there is no Free will in that case. There are only puppets and the puppet master.
The whole idea of God being tempted is preposterous.
Matt 4:1
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.
The story is a parable. Just as God worked His own acts and came up with His own moral code, so to was man going to have to do the same. Man being made in the image and likeness of God, enabled it. The one who hears the parable must know, that in order to make choices, an individual must ponder the situation, choose values, a moral code to follow and decide from there.
"if you have never seen death, how do yo know it is bad?"
The one's that wrote the parable and ponder it all know what death is.
Now THAT'S what I call faith.
And that all occurred through pure happenstance, eh?
The answer, of course, is no. Don't be silly.
Creationists are about as believable as Bill Clinton, period.
Well I'm prepared to say it is.
Saying "we hold...." is a way of establshing a foundation.
A lot of people consider hold it as self-evident that society must be based on Sharia Law. Who am I to say they are wrong? I just don't hold that as self-evident.
I am in agreeance with js1138
What is obvious to me is that many people, but not all, refuse to be bullied.I'm just trying to see the reason for that.
There is no right not to be bullied. It's something that individuals fight and die for, and for a few, it's something their culture or their government enforces by law.
Now if when you object to being bullied, the king can send out all his chariots and wipe you from the earth, he will do so, no matter what rights you creator has endowed you with.
If on the other hand he is limited to sending a samll war-party, on foot, into an area ideal for ambush, and you know the terrain, you and whatever friends agree with you can make it cost him. He might wipe you out in the end, (even that isn't certain, the Mighty Roman Empire got chewed up in the Teutoburger Forest), but seizing your small hill farm won't have been worth the blood and treasure he had to pay.
So he might decide he's better off with you as a friend, in case someöne in the future wants to bully him.
But then he's got to give you something ie your "certain unalienable Rights"
Eventually these become something the culture or their government enforces by law.
Anyone who takes time from their brief life to read a bibul is dumb. Creationists are fanatics who think the bibul has the answers. The bibul is being removed from this country and they can't handle it so they are trying to scratch to hold onto the beliefs of their grandparents. They need to get with the future but they are scared.
Don't bother posting to me anymore.
I like your rules.
Seems like a lot of posters around here were trained on them.
I especially like these three:
Rule 9.
Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Anti-evos do this often on these threads.
Rule 14
Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.
Isn't this what the anti-evo crowd do so often? They demand evos explain all transitional stages that led to some specific organ. Otherwise, they claim, evolution cannot possibly be true.
Rule 19
...Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by ... In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Again this matches what the anti-evo crowd do. Especially the last part.
***They match the tactics of the anti-evolutionist movement.***
Wait!, are you with the media?
Shouldn't that be...
"They match the tactics of the anti-creationist movement."
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumour mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumours and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumours". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumour" which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Side-track opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left- wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. Example: "This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters." Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candour that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarise the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalise, Antagonise, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralise sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralise all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favourable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favourably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven distinct traits:
1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Their disdain for "conspiracy theorists" and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to- face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.
7) There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralises itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
Try being specific.
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Disinformation.html http://www.secretgovernmentlabs.com/page/disinformation http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556 and on and on
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.