Posted on 09/19/2010 12:54:50 AM PDT by Stoat
No. I did not create the murderer/rapist knowing what he was going to do.
There is no blame, because I do not believe that to God, what He knows we will do, is good or bad. It just is.
I believe the concept of good or bad is a human trait. That is why I say God is responsible, but I do not blame him for anything.
I understand what you’re saying, but think there is more to the situation than the finite facts presented here. If you mean “Is a creator ultimately responsible for the effects of his creation” then I don’t engage in those types of debates, which are akin to “Are gun manufacturers responsible for deaths at the hands of killers.” I can see some type of broad, meaningless application to that type of rhetoric, but in the end I have to put aside more facts to make that rationalization than I have to accept. And that’s not something I do, nor care to waste my time doing (I have come to the realization that “kicking against the pricks” becomes both painful and gets me no where, so accept the truth that’s been given, and the understanding that comes with it).
It really isn’t akin to that.
No. You don't get to tell someone how to answer.
You have responded more completely, not answered.
More word games.
Look, I understand the reasoning behind your answers. Sorry I mistook you for someone that could just answer honestly yes or no, nothing more.
No. You don't want real answers. You want a sheep to follow your scripted dialogue. Ain't happening.
Thank you.
I’m not so patient, as you seem to be, bless you for that!
That's quite a compliment considering I'm not normally patient. Thank you again. But I think the game being played has run it's course and I am now finished with it.
I hope your day is a blessing!
If this is what counts for rational thought in your world, then your world is very, very unstable, and there is no sense trying to have a rational discussion with you. Carry on in your insanity, GourmetDan.
OK, have it your way. The entire Bible is open to re-definition to mean exactly the opposite of what it says. Fallacious imaginations substitute for reasoned argument and critical-thinking skills are forever banished from your mind in favor of emotionally-driven scenarios.
If this is what counts for rational thought in your world, then your world is very, very unstable, and there is no sense trying to have a rational discussion with you. Carry on in your insanity, Hemmingway’s Ghost.
But I do get to expect an answer in the requested form. It’s just good manors.
If not knowing the difference between responding and answering with a yes or no, then I guess to you it is a game.
Wrong again.
You addressed NOTHING that I posted to you. This exercise in futility was your attempt to elicit responses in your "Gotcha" plan. Didn't work.
Your Sinclair Lewis quote says a great deal about you. I responded to you as I would to anyone with lefty ideas.
So now you are free to post more sour grapes. I won't respond to you again. Have at it stuart.
Why people like you who take a perfectly beautiful and all-important book like the Bible and insist that every word that doesn’t match their own opinions is therefore open to re-interpretation to agree with those opinions, I’ll never know.
Human beings are fallible creatures. The transmission of ideas or concepts via the written word is a fallible form of communication. Hence, for any given piece of written work, there may be many interpretations of it; especially considering a work with such a deep, all-encompassing scope as the Bible.
To believe otherwise, you'd have to believe that infallible man exists.
Which is why you're trying to do what?
"Human beings are fallible creatures. The transmission of ideas or concepts via the written word is a fallible form of communication. Hence, for any given piece of written work, there may be many interpretations of it; especially considering a work with such a deep, all-encompassing scope as the Bible."
Especially useful for those who wish to use that excuse to alter those interpretations fit fallible human desires.
"To believe otherwise, you'd have to believe that infallible man exists."
Ah, back to the fallacy of the false dilemma. Shocking...
It’s an either-or choice, GourmetDan. Man is either fallible or he is infallible. There is absolutely no middle ground there.
Which has no relevance to your claim that the Bible may therefore be re-interpreted to fit fallible human desires.
That is where the fallacy of the false dilemma occurs.
That is where the fallacy of the false dilemma occurs.
I never made that claim. You're putting words in my mouth.
You can't even follow the thread of an argument . . .
Well, let me re-phrase then:
"Human beings are fallible creatures. The transmission of ideas or concepts via the written word is a fallible form of communication. Hence, for any given piece of written work, there may be many interpretations of it; especially considering a work with such a deep, all-encompassing scope as the Bible."
Which is why the fallibility of man has no relevance to what you wrote above. It's merely the fallacy of the false dilemma regurgitated.
"You can't even follow the thread of an argument . . ."
Which is why you are doing what?
Kicking at a prick. Shame on me for indulging one.
Ah, projecting again.
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.