Zakath: Are you using the term "world" in a planetary sense or a universal one? Do you believe in the Christian doctrine termed "original sin"? Whose sin do you believe brought cancer into the world?
Knight: With Adam's sin death became a part of the world.
You missed the first two questions, Knight...
Entropy is NOT a function of sin as I believe that a pile of sticks left to themselves even before the original sin would still become disorganized. However, by adding death to the equation entropy acts on our cells, dna etc. and things such as cancer develop.
Current thinking (last 20 years or so) is that cancer is due to changes in the genetic material of somatic cells caused by injury or viruses. This tends to rule out entropy as a cause of diseases like cancers. Besides, since you appear to view entropy as a function of time (your comment "left to themselves"), babies wouldn't have had sufficient time for entropy to damage their cells.
Zakath questioned Knight about why he continues to focus on sexual deviance.
Knight: Only with you because I know you do not find such things as wrong.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. You are, in essence, lying by omission. Hardly very "Christian" behavior, Knight.
Zakath: I find it sad that you will condemn the death of the innocent in abortion, yet reframe the slaughter of innocents by religionists to "collateral damage".
Knight: Collateral damage happens in EVERY war regardless if the war is religious or not. It's a plain and simple unavoidable fact.
You are engaging in a fine example of "doublespeak" Knight. You accuse an opponent of an action you consider evil in emotionlly charged rhetoric and when the tables are turned you try to divert the issue by using propaganda terminology from military psyops.
Why not stop tap dancing and admit the facts, Knight. You and your religion supports and approves of the butchery of babies as certainly as those you call abortionists. Calling that butchery by military terminology does not change the facts.
...God used physical miracles to keep His plan of sending a Savior to the world from being thwarted, He used miracles as "signs" and He used miracles as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah and that His disciples were for real. He no longer does physical miracles because currently there are no reason for physical miracles...
But doesn't you're deity have disciples today? When did he stop having to prove they were real? 33AD? 70AD? 120AD? 324AD?
... God knows that most miracles turned people away from Him.Since He desires that men choose Him why would He want to do something that turns the majority away? Generally, in the Bible miracles left men not wanting God but wanting a subsequent miracle.
Wanting a subsequent miracle is hardly the same thing as rejecting someone based on a miracle. Repeatability is one of the foundations of the scientific method. If something is not repeatable, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess it scientifically.
The Deity can DO anything He wants (within the boundaries of His reality).
That's quite a vague limiting statement. What types of boundaries does a deity have? Don't you believe the Christian deity is "omni" in several different areas?
But what He wants is for men to choose Him on their own free-will. He does not want men to choose Him because there is no other option.
If that is true, then why all the "bully boy" tactics over the centuries?
- Man doesn't love YHWH enough, so the entire human race is condemned.
Man doesn't love YHWH enough, so he sends a flood to wipe out man woman and child.
Man doesn't love YHWH enough so he sends fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Man doesn't love YHWH enough so the Romans sack Jerusalem in 70 AD and destroy Solomon's Temple.
The Bible is replete with YHWH's heavy-handed, "obey me or I'll destroy you" attitude.
You describe the situation as if there were another option. If your deity is really "God", then it seems that the only two options are obedience or oblivion.
