Does Everyone Agree with Bob?

[wickwoman]

You are an idiot. He is angry with the wicked, for using the will he gave them to be wicked.

You don't like the Christian message because you hate God. The idea that the creator seeks justice, makes no sense. And you don't want to hear. Wormtongue appeals to you, not the truth.

Your words.

Hello NickM:

I see your post and also that you haven't asked me to explain or anything so I'll just let it go at that. :execute:

But, if I were TomO I would change my avatar because I believe he also has Ronald and at first I thought he had posted this and was quite surprised. I have always Found TomO's posts to be well thought and polite, though I am certain we disagree about many things.

Have a nice day.

 

[lightbringer]

Hello MaryContrary:

You seem to know so much about a person with whom your only relationship is having conversed over the Internet. My thought, if you are truly interested, is this: if a potter makes a pot with a bubble in it and it cracks soon after completion, who made the mistake? The potter or the pot? IF man failed it was because of an innate flaw in his nature. So either man wasn't perfectly made or he was. If he wasn't then the creator is equally flawed.

When conversing with a certain type of person (Radical theist) it is not advisable to make good sense, unless of course you are not concerned with them being able to follow the conversation!

 

[Hweila]

Again, try to keep up with the convo or go sit at the kiddie table. This doesn't address why one who'd experience behavior tempting him to anger from a certain group only one time in years would assume that to be the norm for everyone else.

Ah, I see now where I may not have been clear. I'm not basing that belief purely on my own experience. I know quite a number of non-Christians who are at least indifferent to proselytization until it reaches the level of harassment. The frequency with which that has happened varies considerably, though the primary offender tend to be either Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. The ones I know who are quicker to become angry than that are ones have been severely harassed about it in the past, typically by family members.

 

[Town Heretic]

Hello MaryContrary:

You seem to know so much about a person with whom your only relationship is having conversed over the Internet. My thought, if you are truly interested, is this: if a potter makes a pot with a bubble in it and it cracks soon after completion, who made the mistake? The potter or the pot? IF man failed it was because of an innate flaw in his nature. So either man wasn't perfectly made or he was. If he wasn't then the creator is equally flawed.

Something you might want to consider then as a general response to your idea regarding the potter. Man could be made perfectly for his role, though not perfect in his being. In fact, I'd suggest that he could not be fashioned else to fulfill the purpose of his creation.

There sits only one being in perfection. Among His many attributes is love. It is in the nature of love to give of itself in expression. As God desired to express His nature he required an object for it other than Himself...an object other than that which is perfect. In creating man He made us other than Himself, lesser than Himself and relational to Himself. Man's intellectual imperfection allowed for error, both of the mistaken and intentional sort. I believe the distinction between these two sorts is illustrated in Genesis. Now man chose to follow his want in rejection of instruction from that which he knew to be the source of the good and from that came a greater imperfection and judgment.

So, God not only can, but must fashion that which is imperfect. As to the responsibility for the flaw's consequence, it remains with us, since man is at every point capable of overcoming the pull of his imperfection by being obedient. That he chooses not to is another matter and one that brought us unmerited grace in the person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

 

[MaryContrary]

Hello MaryContrary:

You seem to know so much about a person with whom your only relationship is having conversed over the Internet.

:squint: I'm going by what you've said right here and nothing more. What are you on about? I even implied that I was unsure whether you were being dishonest or simply foolish. I don't see how I'm claiming much confidence about who you are at all.

My thought, if you are truly interested, is this: if a potter makes a pot with a bubble in it and it cracks soon after completion, who made the mistake? The potter or the pot? IF man failed it was because of an innate flaw in his nature. So either man wasn't perfectly made or he was. If he wasn't then the creator is equally flawed.

Not really any different than what you said before. You're still putting the blame for our (your) actions on God. Again, this is either foolish in that it lacks any understanding of free will or dishonest in that it's intended to place blame and failure falsely on God. Hey, you pick and let me know so I don't offend you any further. Maybe there's some other explanation even.

Until then I haven't a clue how to address the actual point without further implying you're either a fool or a liar, so I'll wait until you get back to me. Instead I'll try to just address the point independently for those who are actually foolish enough to believe it has any validity. With any luck you won't get your panties any further in a twist over my doing this.


To everyone but Wickwoman (in the interests of avoiding further offense), consider:

Let's say me and my husband decide to have a child. We are aware the child will have free will and make its own decisions. We can control the environment this child is raised in but can't control its thoughts, its decisions and all manner of minor internal mysteries that influence what kind of person it will grow up to be.

And we don't want to anyway. We wouldn't even if we could. We want to create a person, not a robot. We briefly considered creating a robot who will act, think and perform in perfect accordance with our will. Then we reject that notion as being not at all what we have in mind. A free willed being whom we can raise in love who will love us in return is what we're shooting for. And when grown, hopefully, that child will go out into the world and make it a better place.

If it does not, oh well. It will be free to do as it wills after all, as it will have to suffer its own failures and their consequences. But if it does...awesome. :thumb: And of course, we will be around always to provide all the support we can for it to do so.

Later, a strange woman comes around and knocks on our door. She accuses us of failing as parents because our child has since revealed itself to be an independent being, capable of making choices that we ourselves would not. Our child has *gasp* made decisions that we disagree with. It has, in fact, utterly failed to be a perfect robot.

Should I call this woman a fool for not understanding that creating a robot was never the intention but rather a free willed, independent child? Or should I recognize that she just really doesn't like us for some reason and is trying to pick a fight with some inane accusation?

Essentially, do I shut the door in her face and go back to watching tv? Or do I try to reason with the idiot and illustrate where she's being silly?


Edit: If somehow, despite my best intentions, this posts still manages to offend you Wickwoman then I can only offer what I've implied before. That I don't think you're stupid and feel I must assume you're being dishonest. Or perhaps simply accepting a faulty premise because you enjoy the negative light it places on God. In either case, I would have no problem with offending you. However, if I'm wrong and you are stupid, my apologies.

 

[MaryContrary]

Ah, I see now where I may not have been clear. I'm not basing that belief purely on my own experience. I know quite a number of non-Christians who are at least indifferent to proselytization until it reaches the level of harassment. The frequency with which that has happened varies considerably, though the primary offender tend to be either Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. The ones I know who are quicker to become angry than that are ones have been severely harassed about it in the past, typically by family members.

Okay. lain:

 

[wickwoman]

Something you might want to consider then as a general response to your idea regarding the potter. Man could be made perfectly for his role, though not perfect in his being. In fact, I'd suggest that he could not be fashioned else to fulfill the purpose of his creation.

There sits only one being in perfection. Among His many attributes is love. It is in the nature of love to give of itself in expression. As God desired to express His nature he required an object for it other than Himself...an object other than that which is perfect. In creating man He made us other than Himself, lesser than Himself and relational to Himself. Man's intellectual imperfection allowed for error, both of the mistaken and intentional sort. I believe the distinction between these two sorts is illustrated in Genesis. Now man chose to follow his want in rejection of instruction from that which he knew to be the source of the good and from that came a greater imperfection and judgment.

So, God not only can, but must fashion that which is imperfect. As to the responsibility for the flaw's consequence, it remains with us, since man is at every point capable of overcoming the pull of his imperfection by being obedient. That he chooses not to is another matter and one that brought us unmerited grace in the person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Sounds reasonable. Are you saying that man was created with freewill and want to do "wrong" sothat he would fail on purpose? I could see that. But, the story in Genesis sets out a more riveting tale of talking snakes and trees that impart knowledge, of nakedness that is somehow evil yet unknown until eating from this tree, I could go on.

I don't necessarily believe man was perfect but I believe the way he was created was purposeful. And that God, if perfect, (and he doesn't have to be, he could just be REALLY GREAT and POWERFUL) would have known of this supposed failure all along. But if so, I don't think that would be a failure. Everything would be going according to plan, correct? I'm good with that.

 

[wickwoman]

:squint: I'm going by what you've said right here and nothing more. What are you on about? I even implied that I was unsure whether you were being dishonest or simply foolish. I don't see how I'm claiming much confidence about who you are at all.


Not really any different than what you said before. You're still putting the blame for our (your) actions on God. Again, this is either foolish in that it lacks any understanding of free will or dishonest in that it's intended to place blame and failure falsely on God. Hey, you pick and let me know so I don't offend you any further. Maybe there's some other explanation even.

Until then I haven't a clue how to address the actual point without further implying you're either a fool or a liar, so I'll wait until you get back to me. Instead I'll try to just address the point independently for those who are actually foolish enough to believe it has any validity. With any luck you won't get your panties any further in a twist over my doing this.


To everyone but Wickwoman (in the interests of avoiding further offense), consider:

Let's say me and my husband decide to have a child. We are aware the child will have free will and make its own decisions. We can control the environment this child is raised in but can't control its thoughts, its decisions and all manner of minor internal mysteries that influence what kind of person it will grow up to be.

And we don't want to anyway. We wouldn't even if we could. We want to create a person, not a robot. We briefly considered creating a robot who will act, think and perform in perfect accordance with our will. Then we reject that notion as being not at all what we have in mind. A free willed being whom we can raise in love who will love us in return is what we're shooting for. And when grown, hopefully, that child will go out into the world and make it a better place.

If it does not, oh well. It will be free to do as it wills after all, as it will have to suffer its own failures and their consequences. But if it does...awesome. :thumb: And of course, we will be around always to provide all the support we can for it to do so.

Later, a strange woman comes around and knocks on our door. She accuses us of failing as parents because our child has since revealed itself to be an independent being, capable of making choices that we ourselves would not. Our child has *gasp* made decisions that we disagree with. It has, in fact, utterly failed to be a perfect robot.

Should I call this woman a fool for not understanding that creating a robot was never the intention but rather a free willed, independent child? Or should I recognize that she just really doesn't like us for some reason and is trying to pick a fight with some inane accusation?

Essentially, do I shut the door in her face and go back to watching tv? Or do I try to reason with the idiot and illustrate where she's being silly?


Edit: If somehow, despite my best intentions, this posts still manages to offend you Wickwoman then I can only offer what I've implied before. That I don't think you're stupid and feel I must assume you're being dishonest. Or perhaps simply accepting a faulty premise because you enjoy the negative light it places on God. In either case, I would have no problem with offending you. However, if I'm wrong and you are stupid, my apologies.

Hello MaryContrary:

I don't believe I said I was offended, so there you go again. One has to care what the other thinks in order to be offended. And I've seen your posts here enough to know that your opinion is meaningless to me. We are definitely on different wavelengths, that's a fact. Beyond that, I mostly use the scroll button when I see your name, unless I see that you are addressing me. I say this not to be mean or to hurt you and I'm sure you'll agree my opinion matters little to you as well, but I mention it only to let you know that if you have an interest in reaching the "lost" for Jesus, you aren't doing so well at getting your message across at least to me.

 

[MaryContrary]

Hello MaryContrary:

I don't believe I said I was offended, so there you go again. One has to care what the other thinks in order to be offended. And I've seen your posts here enough to know that your opinion is meaningless to me. We are definitely on different wavelengths, that's a fact. Beyond that, I mostly use the scroll button when I see your name, unless I see that you are addressing me. I say this not to be mean or to hurt you and I'm sure you'll agree my opinion matters little to you as well, but I mention it only to let you know that if you have an interest in reaching the "lost" for Jesus, you aren't doing so well at getting your message across at least to me.

No, it's fine. If you have no interest in what I say, I don't have a problem with that. If you change your mind on any particular point, feel free to engage with me on it. Otherwise, I won't be wasting any further time with you.

However, I hope you don't really think your opinion matters nothing to me. It certainly does. If I've given you that impression, it wasn't intentional I can only assure you. Heck, I like the way your mind works and frankly think you're too smart to believe many of the things you claim to. I expect to see you amend many of your positions on various issues over the next year or two. Or leave the forum altogether before you're forced to.

On the other hand, don't confuse me with other Christians who take it as a personal failure when someone rejects them, rejects the truth or even rejects Christ. I won't take either credit or blame for anyone else's choices. All I'm responsible for is what I say and what I do. You're free to accept or reject, heed or ignore, whatever you like.

 

[wickwoman]

Hello MaryContrary:

I have not tried to convey God in a negative light. I have presented an argument that indicates Christian doctrine is unreasonable. Your example of a decision to have a child does not compare to the relationship of creator and created. Certainly, if you had the ability (and supposedly God does) to prevent your child from stepping out in front of a speeding bus, I assume you would prevent it. If not, you would be arrested for child endangerment. Yet every day the god some Christians believe in knowingly allows thousands of sinners to meet their eternal reward of endless torture. All this because he doesn't want robots?

Your argument seems to indicate that the truth, if fully known would still be ignored by some. But the only thing that really makes sense is that certain people choose against eternal bliss and oneness with the creator because they do not realize how wonderful it would be nor how horrible the consequences of not siding with God.

In other words if your 3 year who has no idea what a speeding bus can do to a human body wants (using his free will) to walk out in front of an oncoming bus, you allow him to make his own decision because you don't want a robot? Freewill is nice but it benefits a mangled three year old little. It has equally little benefit for a soul being tortured for all eternity.

I think compared to the God Christianity conveys - all powerful, all knowing, etc., the mentality of a human is probably similar to a three year old, maybe even more like a puppy.

As an aside, whether or not I will continue here, is completely unknown. I recently returned from a 2 year hiatus. And not because someone ran me off or because I was uncomfortable with the supposed truth. But, because I decided it was not beneficial to me to continue. This is a web forum, for goodness sake, a hobby, at best. And a hobby that often provides little benefit and eats up a large amount of time if one gets obsessed with it. And, I was pretty much obsessed. So I ran myself off. I was busy with more important things. Real life, like you don't find on a computer screen.

 

[pozzolane]

Does Everyone Agree with Bob?

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

"If you tell [people] about Buddha they don't get upset. If you tell them about Jesus Christ they get angry. So that's a sign to us, that's a clue that Christianity is true and Buddhism is false."

That one got a big belly laugh. Thanks! *wipes tear from eye*

 

[Granite]

That one got a big belly laugh. Thanks! *wipes tear from eye*

I'm consistently fascinated and amused with the asininity some people take for wit, wisdom, or brilliance.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, it's fine. If you have no interest in what I say, I don't have a problem with that. If you change your mind on any particular point, feel free to engage with me on it. Otherwise, I won't be wasting any further time with you.

However, I hope you don't really think your opinion matters nothing to me. It certainly does. If I've given you that impression, it wasn't intentional I can only assure you. Heck, I like the way your mind works and frankly think you're too smart to believe many of the things you claim to. I expect to see you amend many of your positions on various issues over the next year or two. Or leave the forum altogether before you're forced to.

On the other hand, don't confuse me with other Christians who take it as a personal failure when someone rejects them, rejects the truth or even rejects Christ. I won't take either credit or blame for anyone else's choices. All I'm responsible for is what I say and what I do. You're free to accept or reject, heed or ignore, whatever you like.

Try talking to people like human beings instead of objects for arrogant presumption. I doubt you offend many people here as WW has more than ably explained to you. You would be one of the last people I would introduce to as a 'witness' for Christian belief and it would have nothing to do with their being offended by what you had to say. *sigh*

 

[Arthur Brain]

That one got a big belly laugh. Thanks! *wipes tear from eye*

It's laughable and sad all in one go... lain:

 

[MaryContrary]

Try talking to people like human beings instead of objects for arrogant presumption. I doubt you offend many people here as WW has more than ably explained to you. You would be one of the last people I would introduce to as a 'witness' for Christian belief and it would have nothing to do with their being offended by what you had to say. *sigh*

:yawn:

Which is to say, I have zero interest in your opinion on how to interact with other people.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:yawn:

Which is to say, I have zero interest in your opinion on how to interact with other people.

Oh I didn't think you would. I'd give the same creedence to someone who was arrogant enough to state that they expected me to change my views or that I'd be forced to leave a forum if I didn't.

lain: