| Welcome to Mahora Academy. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Dark Side Of Philosophy; ~~Feel the evil~~ | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 10 2007, 03:39 AM (769 Views) | |
| frodowise | Dec 15 2007, 07:00 PM Post #46 |
|
Uber Soldant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Haven't been able to post in this thread for a while..cursed web blocker program. Dang...where do I start? >.< I'll begin with Dystant I guess... ism caused by religion you say. I agree 150%. It is caused by people who hide behind a religion (Islam especially) and claim that they can thousands "because God said so". In actuality, the Muslim holy book goes on and on about treating the "people of the Book" (Christians and Jews) with respect and dignity. In other words, there is nothing about "They are not your religion, BURN THEM LIKE THE INFIDELS THEY ARE!" in there. Ditto with Christianity. Christians are told to love their enemies and to help them (though not to do so in a manner that is sinful, such as stealing, etc). Any ist that claims to be acting in the name of -religion- is a liar. Period. I believe you realize that many medical (or semi-medical, such as early cytology and the study of bacteria) discoveries were the result of Christians? I believe I have already said things about Christians and science. They can go together. In fact, they work quite well together. I am afraid that I cannot go to the web link you provided (Cyberstitter be thrice cursed!) so I'll have to leave that alone for now. What method of dating was used on those core samples? Carbon-dating (the most common method I am aware of) is ineffective past roughly 3,000 years. For example, there are cases in which reliably dated documents and artifacts were said to be millions of years old! How in blazes in the Bible contradicted by the existence of dinosaurs?! In Job a "behemoth" and a "leviathan" (sp?) are both mentioned as being creatures readily observable. The behemoth is described as having a tail like that of a cedar trunk. What land animal in all the world has such a tail save for a dinosaur? The leviathan is said to be uncatchable by human spear and hook. A massive creature. No mass extinction during the time humankind has been on this earth? According to the dating used by certain scientists, maybe. But many others (A Dr. J. L. Wile for one) do not accept those as valid past a few thousand years. For another, the La Brea Tar Pits, plus the new mass grave that was discovered (saw a commercial for it on the Discoverey Channel) often have animals piled on top of one another, or in a cave, all bunched together. What would an animal do in the event of rapidly rising water? Rush into a "safe" area. Eventually, of course, the land would begin to run out, leaving hundreds of animals contained in a rapidly diminishing island. The rapid burial needed to fossilize such a large amount of animals would also occur if the "fountains of the deep" and the "sluicegates of heaven" coupled with storms and the like swirled massive amoutns of silt and sediments. I concede the point of the Red sea vs. Reed Sea, unless I find information contradicting that which you have provided. |
![]() |
|
| Dystant | Dec 16 2007, 04:31 PM Post #47 |
![]()
In a galaxy far far away...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok, where to start my response:
The web link I provided was to a site listing contradictions in the bible. How an erroneous book can have contradictions is beyond me.
In the new testament, I agree. Read the old testament, the testament most Christian fundamentals tend to refer too. The god of the old testament is (to quote Richard Dawkins in his book 'the God Delusion'):
The worlds three main monotheistic religions were based on this text. It's amazing the worlds not a more dangerous place than it is. Noah's ark is a great example: god decides that the world hasn't gone quite the way he planned it, so he drowns virtually everyone. As anyone who's narrowly escaped death from drowning will tell you, it is a horific experience, yet the god of the old testament was willing to inflict it on every land dwelling creature on the earth. Doesn't that strike you as counter to the teachings to love your neighbour? That said, as far as Noah's ark goes as a compelling piece of writing, there is no evidence for it. Let's start with the tar pits and you wildly eroneous conclusion. You believe that tar pits with dinosaurs stack up is proof of a flood? Surely if they all ran for safty the dinsaurs would be found side by side? No, the tar pits were a trap. Dinosaur walks across was simply apears to me muddy or boggy ground, finds the ground more viscus than first anticipated but is unable to pull itself free, sinks and drowns. Second dinosaur stumbles on the tar pits later, gets stuck, sinks and drowns. Thus the dinosaur carcases stack up. In addition, tar pits aren't going to be high ground. In fact they're likely to be low ground. In the case of a flood, animals will run for the hills, not for tar pits. To be honest I'm getting a bit annoyed with the use of Noah's ark as a premise for explaining fosils and mass extinction, but to save me time i'll simply paste in some information gathered by a man named Anglagard on the EvC forums (which I'm not a member of, I just came across it). For reference the orginal can be found here: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?act...&f=17&t=198&m=1
I think that's enough for one evening. I look forward to comments and arguments. Is it wrong to find this kind of conversation fun? |
![]() |
|
| TwilightElegy | Dec 16 2007, 11:39 PM Post #48 |
|
Middle Schooler
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I wanna just side track this a little and discuss FELIX CULPA, the idea that satan's fall from grace and the creation of hell was a good thing. since god is all-knowing, he thusly knew that satan would rebel, creating hell. then this means that, since god doesn no evil, the creation of evil through satan was in fact a good thing. by the way, this theory is dogmatic, and is only debatable by those who study the bible (or John Milton) |
![]() |
|
| frodowise | Dec 17 2007, 08:32 AM Post #49 |
|
Uber Soldant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I also very much enjoy this :). God is the Lord of all things. He is more powerful than anything that is, was, or will be. He also created the world and all that is in it. Now, he originally created the earth and it was "very good" until humankind messed up His plan. They followed the advice of the serpent and ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil rather than following the commands of the all-knowing, all powerful Creator. Before they had ever touched the fruit, He had warned them was the penalty and that is what they and anyone else who disobeys God deserves. Thus, if God gives you anything beyond a firey, eternal torment of pain and suffering you are being blessed beyond what you deserve. You know, if everyone followed the Bible we would have...lets see... 1. No 2. No robbery 3. No ry 4. A day in which to rest from work and whatnot Not seeing how this would make the world a more dangerous place.... "Not the way He planned it?" The people He had created had compleley forsaken all that was good. All of humankind(save Noah and his family) were evil to the core. Evil to the point of having demons marry their women! Every foul and horrible thing possible was being done by these immoral, perverted, sick, twisted people. And there was no Jesus Christ to offer them redemption. God can't just look and say "oh, yeah, no problem guys. I forgive you" The price for your sins must be paid by someone. And so, this evil civilization was destroyed by the greatest flood the world has ever known. These people were merely reaping the reward for evil and sinful behaivor. And that includes the children. Kids are not saints, you know? You are getting tired? If I have to hear 100 billion years ago such and such happened my head might asplode >.<. Let's go through these one at a time, shall we.... 1. Maybe because of massive tidal waves/tsunamies that resulted from the "fountains of the deep" (which many feel to be underwater volcanoes and underground rivers) would continuously remove then add then remove silt, sediment etc. 2. I have no reason to accept this date. There is no reason why I should accept a radiometric date, because it is so often misused and I have no reason to assume that this situation is any different. There is also the fact that scientists base the dates upon the fact that isotopes used in the process have not had their breakdown slowed or accelerated in any way. Nor can they possibly know how much of the material was present at the time the isotope began to "decay". To quote Dr. J. L. Wile.. "The best way of examining the strengths and weaknesses of radioactive dating is to examine one of the radioactive dating methods in detail. Since 14 C is probably the best known radioactive dating technique, I will discuss that one. As I have already mentioned, 14 C decays by beta decay with a half-life of 5,730 years. It turns out that all living organisms contain a certain amount of 14 C, making all living organisms somewhat radioactive. Interestingly enough, living organisms continually exchange 14 C with their surroundings. Human beings, for example, exhale carbon dioxide, some of which contains 14 C. In addition, human beings eat other organisms (plant and animals), which contain 14 C as well. Finally, as you learned way back in Module #2, part of the air that we inhale is made up of carbon dioxide, some of which contains 14 C. Thus, organisms are continually exchanging 14 C with their environment. The practical result of all of this exchange is that, at any time when an organism is alive, it contains the same amount of 14 C as does the atmosphere around the organism. This changes when the organism dies, however. At that point, the 14 C exchange ceases. Thus, the organism cannot replenish its supply of 14 C, and the amount of 14 C in the organism begins to decrease. Every 5,730 years, half of the 14 C in the organism will decay away. In general, then, organisms that have been a long time tend to have less 14 C in them as compared to those that have been for only a short time. Now if you think about it, this fact can be used to measure the length of time that an organism has been . After all, if we know how much 14 C was in an organism when it died, and if we measure the amount of 14 C in it now, the difference will be the amount of 14 C that has decayed away. Since we know how quickly 14 C decays, this can tell us how long the organism has been . Pretty simple, right? Well, it would be simple, if we knew how much 14 C was in the organism when it died. The problem is , how do we figure that out? After all, no one was around to measure the amount of 14 C in the organism when it died; thus, we must make an assumption about how much 14 C would have been measured if someone had been there to measure it. As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with making assumptions in science. The trick is that we have to know our assumptions are accurate. In the case of 14 C dating, scientists assume that, on average, the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere has never really changed that much. They assume that the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere today is essentially the same as it was 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, etc. Thus, when the age of a organism is being measured with 14 C dating, we assume that the amount of 14 C it had when it died was the same as the amount of 14 C that is in the atmosphere now. That gives us a value for how much 14 C was initially in the organism. We can measure the amount of 14 C that is in the organism now and then determine how long the organism has been . Notice, however, that the age we get from this process is completely dependent on the assumption that we made about how much 14 C was in the organism when it died. If that assumption is good, the age we calculate will be accurate. If that assumption is bad, the age we calculate will not be accurate. So the question becomes, “Is the assumption accurate?” In short, the answer is “no.” Through a process involving tree rings, there is a way we can measure the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere in years past. When a tree is cut down, the rings in the tree's trunk can be counted to determine how old the tree is. Each ring represents a year in the life of the tree. We know which ring corresponds to which year by simply counting the rings from the outside of the trunk to the inside. Well, it turns out that through a rather complicated process, we can actually measure the amount of 14 C in a tree ring and use it to determine how much 14 C was in the atmosphere during the year in which the tree ring was grown. As a result, scientists have determined the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere throughout a portion of the earth's past. Scientists have studied the 14 C content in tree rings that are as many as 3,000 years old. From these measurements, scientists have determined the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere over the past 3,000 years. What they have seen is that the amount of 14 C has varied by as much as 70% over that time period. The variation is correlated to certain events that occur on the surface of the sun. As a result, we know that the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere has not stayed constant. Instead, it has varied greatly. Thus, we know that the initial assumption of 14 C dating is wrong. Thus, one must take most 14 C dates with a grain of salt. After all, we know that the assumption used in making those dates is wrong. Consequently, we cannot put too much trust in the results! Notice that I said we must take “most” 14 C dates with a grain of salt. Why “most?” Why not “all?” It turns out that since we can determine the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere during the past using tree rings, we can actually use that data to help us make our initial assumption. As a result, the assumption becomes much more accurate. The problem is, however, that we don't have 14 C measurements for tree rings that are older than 3,000 years. Thus, we can only make an accurate assumption for organisms that have died within the last 3,000 years. As long as the organism died in that time range, we can use tree ring data to help us make an accurate assumption of how much 14 C was in the organism when it died. For organisms that have died longer than 3,000 years ago, we have no tree ring data, so we have no way to make an accurate assumption. As a result, we cannot really believe the 14 C date. In the end, then, the 14 C dating method can be believed for organisms that have been for 3,000 years or less. Thus, it is a great tool for archaeology. If an archaeologist finds a manuscript or a piece of cloth (both cloth and paper are made from plants), the archaeologist can use 14 C dating to determine its age. As long as the result is about 3,000 years or younger, the date can be believed. If the date turns out to be older than 3,000 years, it is most likely wrong. So you should see that radioactive dating involves a pretty important assumption. If the assumption is good, the date obtained from radioactive dating is good. If the assumption is bad, the result obtained from radioactive dating will be bad. Now there are a lot of other radioactive dating techniques besides 14 C dating. Unfortunately, they all suffer from a similar malady. In every radioactive dating technique, we must make assumptions about how much of a certain substance was in the object originally. Such assumptions are quite hard to make accurately." 3. Ah, the geologic collumn...total fabrication. There is no place on earth where such a thing is present. The fact is, a creature with a shell (trilobites for example) would settle closer to the bottom before being buried due to the shape of their shells. They would also tend to be the best preserved due to their hard shell, thus why they make up an immensely large portion (above 90%) of the fossil record. The rest of the record does NOT indicate that creatures fall into a timeline with the earliest at the bottom with the more recent in succesively higher strata. There are also no mid evolution forms. Also, liquefaction liekly had an effect on the fossil record. Liquefaction is described below. "Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the space between individual particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. "http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/html/what/what1.html How does this apply to the ofssil record? In terms of a Great Flood, the whole earth would have soil that is totally saturated by water. The earthquakes, volcanoes and bursting underground rivers would provide the necessary vibration. "Liquefaction has even lifted empty tanks up through asphalt pavement1 and raised pipelines and logs out of the ground.2 In other words, buried objects that are less dense than surrounding soil rise buoyantly when that soil liquefies. What causes liquefaction? What would happen to buried animals and plants in temporarily liquefied sediments? http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction.html That would cause lighter creatures (plants, mammals and birds) to rise above the heavier dinosaurs in this liquefied mud. The shells of the trilobites and other shelled creatures would likely have filled with mud and sunk due to their shapes. Thus why this apparant "geologic time scale" appears. In addition, though I doubt anyone would admit it, there have been several cases in which an older creature has been found in "newer" layers of strata. 4. Ever heard of the Mount St. Helens eruption? When that single volcanoe erupted, it created a small canyon in rapid order. It also set down many, many layers of strata when ordinarily it would have taken thousands/millions of years. Imagine multiple volcanoes erupting added to the effect of tons of water. You could lay down quite a bit of stuff all over the world. 5. The flood was quite a lot of water that was moving quite vigorously. It is entirely possible for the Flood to in one place hit the Canadian Shield just right and strip it of layers of rock (if such "later" rock layers were even there to begin with). The flood raised y mountains!! How hard would it be to move a few tons of earth from one place to another with that kind of force? 6. Because the Flood would pick up a great deal of soil (I grow tired of saying this) and fling it about randomly. The erupting volcanoes (your lava flows) combined with the free floating tons of earth (ancient soil deposits) would allow for such a thing. Given that the Flood waters did eventually recede, there would be plenty of mud/dirt stuck all over the lava flows that would create your interbedded deposits between paleosils. 7. Can't? If I stick some hundreds of thousands of gallons of water in the arctic it can't freeze up into a glacier? I often hear this said about fossils too...turns out you can fossilize a water wheel in about 60 years or so. And no, they did not pourposefully attempt to fossilize it, they simply left it near sediments and what have you in an area where it was possible for it to be fossilized. Somehow believing your claim becomes...difficult. 8. 9. I'm gonna loop these both together. Both because they are based on nothing more than the assumption that (in the case of #8) their dating method is reliable to any age and that (#9) everything would work exactly they way they think it would. During the chaos of a Global Flood, such assumptions have to be taken with a grain of salt. 10. The last one until I get more time to type :). This is from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,3 proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that. Evolutionist responses The decaying current is obviously incompatible with the billions of years needed by evolutionists. So their preferred is a self-sustaining dynamo (electric generator). The earth’s rotation and convection is supposed to circulate the molten nickel/iron of the outer core. Positive and negative charges in this liquid metal are supposed to circulate unevenly, producing an electric current, thus generating the magnetic field. But scientists have not produced a workable despite half a century of research, and there are many problems.4 But the major criticism of Barnes’ young-earth argument concerns evidence that the magnetic field has reversed many times—i.e. compasses would have pointed south instead of north. When grains of the common magnetic mineral magnetite in volcanic lava or ash flows cool below its Curie point (see side note) of 570°C (1060°F), the magnetic domains partly align themselves in the direction of the earth’s magnetic field at that time. Once the rock has fully cooled, the magnetite’s alignment is fixed. Thus we have a permanent record of the earth’s field through time. Although evolutionists have no good explanations for the reversals, they maintain that, because of them, the straightforward decay assumed by Dr Barnes is invalid. Also, their requires at least thousands of years for a reversal. And with their dating assumptions, they believe that the reversals occur at intervals of millions of years, and point to an old earth. A ‘force-field’ around the earth. The earth’s magnetism is running down. This world-wide phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, despite swapping direction many times. Evolutionary theories are not able to explain properly how the magnetism could sustain itself for billions of years. Creationist counter-response The nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys believed that Dr Barnes had the right idea, and he also accepted that the reversals were real. He modified Barnes’ to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection—hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.5,6 Now, as discussed in Creation 19(3), 1997, Dr John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of tectonic plates was a cause of the Genesis Flood (see online version). Dr Humphreys says these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.7 This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern—rather, the total field energy would decay even faster (see graph above).8 This also explains why the sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the dynamo , the overall field energy of the sun is decreasing. Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his : magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction. Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.10 This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ . (See also Dr Humphreys’ online article The Earth’s magnetic field is young.) Conclusion The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years. Sorry, I jut noticed number 76 as I was reading, gotta deal with this promptly. 76. Please understand that God didn't need to send two of literally every animal we know on this earth. Two Husky's, Wolves, Cyotes, and Dobermans, for example. He only needed one pair, such as a wolf, because from their MICROevolution could do its work. Microevolution (for anyone who doesn't know) is the changes within a species, such as a Golden Retriever giving birth to a Puglike pup for various environmental reasons. That evolution I accept because it is observeable and makes perfect sense. It is only the evolution of different kinds (reptile-bird or ape-human) That Creation opposes. There was plenty of room for each kind(species) of animal. Twilight, I'll be happy to discuss the Felix Cupla when I have more time but I felt that dealing with Dystant's claims was a more profitable use of my time for now. I'll go into detail about that too, later. |
![]() |
|
| TwilightElegy | Dec 21 2007, 04:52 AM Post #50 |
|
Middle Schooler
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
mah~! you guys are lucky im interested in philosophy, otherwise id never bother reading all this. @frodo: as you say, God made the world good, and told humans not to eat the fruit of the tree... but if he is all-knowing, then he would've known that they would eat it... there we go, FELIX CULPA~! the fall of man was necessary so that Jesus Christ could step foreward and remove original sin during the passion and allow us entry into the eternal kingdom of heaven. thus, also, the creation of hell is following God's divine plan for it acts to counterbalance the kingdom of heaven and provide a place for all souls who dwell in sin. Felix culpa's philosphy isnt anti-clerical. it acts to support the power of god absolutely, showing that even the creation of the greatest evil serves a purpose. |
![]() |
|
| DeathkaiserG | Dec 21 2007, 05:30 AM Post #51 |
|
8D
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have a teeny little bit question... There's a serpent there right? the one who push adam and eve to eat the apple right?? then God created the serpent right?? does that mean God Created Evil too?? this Felix Culpa? I thought God didn't know that Adam and Eve eaten the apple?? then you say this Felix Culpa thingy??
Does that mean Destiny/Fate is more powerful than God?? This Questions all runs in my head for a week now |
![]() |
|
| Victor Delacroix | Dec 21 2007, 09:42 AM Post #52 |
![]()
Type-Mercury
![]()
|
The serpent is Satan. This whole thing occurred after Satan had been cast out of Heaven. He was pissed, so he decided to go into the garden and fuck shit up for God's new toys. |
![]() |
|
| TwilightElegy | Dec 21 2007, 07:03 PM Post #53 |
|
Middle Schooler
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
in response to the above question regarding god and fate, read the first post in this thread also, God is all knowing, thus he obviously knew that Adam and Eve ate the apple Felix Culpa means 'good fall' and refers to the fact that sin and hell and satan were deliberately created by God as part of his divine plan for humanity... and this plan is GOOD! Anyone who is interested, read John Milton's Paradise Lost, or Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy. |
![]() |
|
| DeathkaiserG | Dec 22 2007, 12:46 AM Post #54 |
|
8D
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wait a minute??? Satan is the serpent?? and he is also the one has been thrown out of heaven?? and that means Satan was an Archangel??? I know that....
??? that makes me more confused more
Hmm.. then you're that we're just characters in a book called Life created by God?? then the tragedies in this world (Killings and Sufferings) are GOOD since we are in his plan that is GOOD That makes sense ![]() also a bit harsh that makes "Love Hurts" true |
![]() |
|
| TwilightElegy | Dec 23 2007, 10:00 PM Post #55 |
|
Middle Schooler
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
we need to be careful when we discuss the divine plan. no, killings and murders are not good... but they are necessary. on this topic, please read Voltaire's 'Candide, ou l'Optisme' |
![]() |
|
| DeathkaiserG | Dec 23 2007, 10:20 PM Post #56 |
|
8D
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Remember It's already planned it is planned to seperate the goats from the sheeps and where can you find this Voltaire's 'Candide, ou l'optimiste book can you give me the site (please not the real book because i'm too lazy to read them) |
![]() |
|
| TwilightElegy | Dec 23 2007, 10:25 PM Post #57 |
|
Middle Schooler
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
sorry, i have no idea where to get this on the internet~! just look Voltaire up in google, he is a pretty famous philosopher (by the way, i read the book in french, and dont know if there are english translations) you might also like to look up Leibnizian Philosphy while your at it they both deal with the idea that everything happens for the greater good, but Voltaire criticizes it, saying that tho god is all-knowing and all-loving, bad is essential in this universe (hence satan) |
![]() |
|
| DeathkaiserG | Dec 23 2007, 10:47 PM Post #58 |
|
8D
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One more Question: What is the purpose of this Divine Plan?? |
![]() |
|
| TwilightElegy | Dec 23 2007, 10:50 PM Post #59 |
|
Middle Schooler
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Divine Plan is known only to God, it is His plan for the universe. At this point id like to pint out, i am NOT a Christian, i am a student of philosphy who has an interest in Theology. I do not ENDORSE these opinions, i am merely stating them for the purpose of philosphical discourse. |
![]() |
|
| Regalar | Feb 7 2008, 09:13 AM Post #60 |
|
Grade Schooler
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is frodo, signing under another name because I have forgotten my password >.<. Evil is NOT essential to this world, else heaven/new heaven and new earth wouldn't be possible. There wil be NO evil nor will there ever be evil in the new heaven and earth. God's plan did not call for Adam and Eve to fall. God knew they would, of course, but if they hadn't God would now have servants who at one time had a choice:God or sin. Sin's "purpose" originally was merely to see if they were truely God's servants, or were good simply because they weren't evil. It's that old question, "Are you truely good if there is no evil?". However, once shown to have chosen God, sin would not have taken dominion over their lives as it did when they fell. I have no idea what God would have done, but I imagine He would have rewarded them in some fashion. Humankind is constantly messing up the good that we would receive (though, God knows we will mess it up before we get the gift He offers so...gah time paradox things hurt my brain!!!) because we chose sin over God. Please note that all people after Adam and Eve had a sin nature. That is, they had a slant or lean towards sinning consistantly. Like a drug addict or a smoker, save that the only cure is Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. @DeathKaiserG: The purpose of the Divine Plan, as far as the man/God releationship goes, is to provide God with willing servants who would be able to rule and reign with Him for eternity. The purpose of man in general is simply to provide pleasure and honor and glory to God. He already glorifies and honors Himself, but chose to create Earth and Heaven to show His glory to those He would eventualy create. He was adding to the boundless glory and honor and power etc. that he possessed. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · Yue's Corner · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)








3:48 AM Jul 11