2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI deem them to be of equal value but I see no assertion in that post you'll find nice principles in any of those writings. Indeed that particular line of argument was introduced by yourself after that post (and is refuted by appealing to the gospel of the FSM).
here is your statement dear Agers,
Your Bible is no better an indicator as to the veracity of your beliefs than the Koran, Chronicles of Thor, the writings of Scientology, or any other human work,
which suggests to me that you deem such works as of equal validity, i was merely trying to ascertain on what basis you deem them to be of equal val ...[text shortened]... this conclusion (the failure of Joseph to establish the veracity of his beliefs notwithstanding)
Originally posted by Agergyes that is understood however on what basis do you find them of equal value, no appeals to the spaghetti deity can nullify your responsibility to provide a basis for this assertion!
I deem them to be of equal value but I see no assertion in that post you'll find nice principles in any of those writings. Indeed that particular line of argument was introduced by yourself [b]after that post (and is refuted by appealing to the gospel of the FSM).[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI deem them to have equal value not for the argument you propose (since this is a poor yard stick given that I can indeed reference the FSM gospel in this case), but for the fact that there are an infinite number of gods that can be formulated by humans and that the holy books we have right now, are as far as has been determined, works of non-supernatual humans postulating about the supernatural. There is no way for me to assign any greater weight of plausibility to one over another.
yes that is understood however on what basis do you find them of equal value, no appeals to the spaghetti deity can nullify your responsibility to provide a basis for this assertion!
Originally posted by Agergyes there is, you can make a comparative evaluation of the effects of the application of principles on the adherents! this is the great formula
I deem them to have equal value not for the argument you propose (since this is a poor yard stick given that I can indeed reference the FSM gospel in this case), but for the fact that there are an infinite number of gods that can be formulated by humans and that the holy books we have right now, are as far as has been determined, works of non-supernatual human ...[text shortened]... atural. There is no way for me to assign any greater weight of plausibility to one over another.
principle + application = effect on adherent
🙂
Originally posted by Agergprinciple according to the spaghetti deity (men and women are essentially the same),
Then I should believe in the FSM
principle according to scripture (we have two ears and one mouth, we should listen more than we speak),
application, lying on the bed after a long day and your misses wants to speak,
spaghetti monster we are the same, i will speak as much as her, course of wisdom = none,
biblical principle = ill shall listen, she will feel I value her thoughts, course of wisdom = happiness.
conclusion spaghetti monster principle is inferior to the application of Biblical principles, ultimate conclusion, God lives and is awesome.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieprinciple according to the spaghetti deity (men and women are essentially the same),
principle according to the spaghetti deity (men and women are essentially the same),
principle according to scripture (we have two ears and one mouth, we should listen more than we speak),
application, lying on the bed after a long day and your misses wants to speak,
spaghetti monster we are the same, i will speak as much as her, course o ...[text shortened]... ferior to the application of Biblical principles, ultimate conclusion, God lives and is awesome.
principle according to scripture (we have two ears and one mouth, we should listen more than we speak),
This, if we apply it to all, and if you think it through properly, is contradictory. If x things are said in some time interval (such that there will be at most x conversations to listen to during this time) then assuming one doesn't speak whilst he/she is listening if it is ever the case that one person listens more than he speaks then there exists at least one person who must necessarily speak more than he listens.
application, lying on the bed after a long day and your misses wants to speak,
spaghetti monster we are the same, i will speak as much as her, course of wisdom = none,
You can of course recast this in a light that is not favourable to you. For example; if she is driving her car in the wrong direction, getting stressed out by other traffic, and pleading for directions (and you fail to respond with timely and sufficient instruction) then she will have a massive argument with you when you both get back home and then dump you 2 days later (and she'll keep the dog...unless it isn't house trained - in which case she'll induce an "unfortunate mishap" on the dog, have it put down and forward the bill to you...bitch!).
biblical principle = ill shall listen, she will feel I value her thoughts, course of wisdom = happiness.
Or hold the opinion you are disinterested in what she has to say and believe you condescendingly nod in agreement just to pacify her.
conclusion spaghetti monster principle is inferior to the application of Biblical principles, ultimate conclusion, God lives and is awesome.
You have failed to demonstrate this.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat"He didn't have to stick that tree there..."
Well well, you really are all over the place aren't you! Go back to the bible and read Genesis again. Read the story straight - god clearly sets Adam and Eve up for the fall. He didn't have to stick that tree there - he could have put it on a different planet if he'd wanted, or put a 100ft high wall around it or put in on a island or whatever. Th ...[text shortened]... a christian and manifestly fail to behave like one. That, Joseph, is hypocrisy.
Adam didn't have to disobey God.
"Conversely, you call yourself a christian and manifestly fail to behave like one".
That is true avalanch. I do indeed fail. But I am not a "Christian" because I make myself one. I am a Christian because I have believed and trusted in what God has done for me by His son. Being or becoming or behaving like a Christian isn't something one does of themselves.
I'm as human as the next guy. Some of us are better at being better. That's beside the point. I will fail. I'll even be hypocritical here and there. One thing is for sure; I'm no better than anyone else just because I'm a Christian.
No mature Christian goes around thinking they are better than anyone else just because they know they have eternal life.
This little debate between you and I has to do with the interpretation of what is meant by what the Bible says, and not about our personal failures.
If I have offended you, then I apologise.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephw"He didn't have to stick that tree there..."
[b]"He didn't have to stick that tree there..."
Adam didn't have to disobey God.
"Conversely, you call yourself a christian and manifestly fail to behave like one".
That is true avalanch. I do indeed fail. But I am not a "Christian" because I make myself one. I am a Christian because I have believed and trusted in what God has done for and not about our personal failures.
If I have offended you, then I apologise.[/b]
Adam didn't have to disobey God.
Your god creating Adam with a blank state with respect to what is right and wrong, placing a naughty tree within easy range and introducing into the garden a naughty serpent; coupled with omniscience and omnipotence (such that he could have at least deduced the most likely outcome, and have done ought that is logically possible and different) arranged for this event to occur.
In just the same way as the blame is all mine when I get segmentation faults due to faulty c++ code, the fault here lies squarely at the "feet" of your god.
Originally posted by Agergcontinuing your analogy, when a third party introduces a piece of malware, are we to blame the programmer for the creation of the code? Who is at fault, the programmer or the third party?
[b]"He didn't have to stick that tree there..."
Adam didn't have to disobey God.
Your god creating Adam with a blank state with respect to what is right and wrong, placing a naughty tree within easy range and introducing into the garden a naughty serpent; coupled with omniscience and omnipotence (such that he could have at least deduced the most ...[text shortened]... ion faults due to faulty c++ code, the fault here lies squarely at the "feet" of your god.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe programmer is to blame if the malware is his own. (It was your god who put the serpent in the garden.)
continuing your analogy, when a third party introduces a piece of malware, are we to blame the programmer for the creation of the code? Who is at fault, the programmer or the third party?
Originally posted by Agergnot very convincing Agers, God made Adam and Eve perfect, he created a perfect environment, his code was perfectly suited to the purpose for what it was designed, that a third party misusing the gift of free will introduces in effect a piece of malware and you are apportioning blame to the programmer on the basis that code is available for everyone to use, for either an honourable purpose or a dishonorouble one, i think you have a little explaining to do Agers, for what you are saying is, that because God created code, when someone missuses it, it is his fault, well well, all those who invented programming languages are guilty of introducing malware, guilty through association of creating code in the first instance, i think not.
The programmer is to blame if the malware is his own. (It was your god who put the serpent in the garden.)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyour god "coded" Adam and Eve, it "coded" the Garden of Eden, it "coded" the naughty serpent. The fault lies only with your god.
not very convincing Agers, God made Adam and Eve perfect, he created a perfect environment, his code was perfectly suited to the purpose for what it was designed, that a third party misusing the gift of free will introduces in effect a piece of malware and you are apportioning blame to the programmer on the basis that code is available for everyone t ...[text shortened]... oducing malware, guilty through association of creating code in the first instance, i think not.
Originally posted by Agergso because he created code he is to blame if someone missuses it, then Agers you are stating that anyone who creates a programming language is also guilty if a third party missuses it? not very convincing is it dear Agers 🙂
your god "coded" Adam and Eve, it "coded" the Garden of Eden, it "coded" the naughty serpent. The fault lies only with your god.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyour (omniscient) god did no error checking; moreover because it is omniscient then it would have known which errors could have occured. The "program" runs subject to the constraints of your god's coding. There is no third party other than your god.
so because he created code he is to blame if someone missuses it, then Agers you are stating that anyone who creates a programming language is also guilty if a third party missuses it? not very convincing is it dear Agers 🙂
The fault lies with your god.