(May 14, 2013 at 2:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't get your point FNM. You're saying that you shouldn't live the life you're judged upon. Then on what are you judged? What were the choices? Is your question: "Why isn't the universe a theoretical model rather than an actual model?"? If God skipped the middleman, he should also skip everything.

God did test you. He didn't skip to the end before you made the choices. You had to make those choices first.

The part I bolded is what I'm getting at. Why did we have to make the choices if god already knows the outcome regardless of whether we actually make those decisions or not?

Think about it from a pre-universe perspective as god is planning his creation. He decides he wants to create intelligent organisms that choose whether or not to spend eternity in his presence. But he already knows how it's going to play out, and who will choose him and who won't.

If life is a test, and god already knows how we will do on that test, what is the purpose of letting life play out.

---

(May 14, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: IOW FNM, Frodo isn't denying the absurdity of the situation - he's rolling around in it gleefully.

You're such an instigator.

---

(May 15, 2013 at 6:51 am)Esquilax Wrote: Catfish, do you remember a time when you were at least trying to say something when you posted?

No one does.

(May 15, 2013 at 6:51 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:Where's home to you? I was thinking of Hollywood and mainstream TV. To me the message is anti religion.

Can you provide some examples? This interests me, though it's hard to discuss without knowing what, exactly, you mean when you say anti-religion. I don't see that coming out of America, and even here in Australia, where religion is barely mentioned at all, when it is there's a kind of wheedling assumption that it's a good thing, all of the time.

Well from Life of Brian, which kinda shows the UK bias, and also the world I think as how would it do so well otherwise? Contraversial in it's time. Not offensive at all now. To stuff like Dogma, The Simpsons, South Park. These are the front line. Plenty others just behind. To me it seems to be pervasive. I don't mind at all. I just can't see how anyone would thing that there was a widespread religious zeitgiest going on.

(May 15, 2013 at 6:51 am)Esquilax Wrote: Secular and anti religion aren't synonyms.

I get your point. To me they're essentially the same.

(May 15, 2013 at 6:51 am)Esquilax Wrote: I... kinda get wary around unevidenced assertions, so I'll leave this one alone...

lol Those were high profile cases in the uk, and both were covered on these boards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-21028691
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15811223

catfish Wrote:lol Those were high profile cases in the uk, and both were covered on these boards.

What are you "lol" ing? Did I miss it or are you implying that its funny that he doesnt speak about that he does not know? (like you)

Esquilax Wrote:Can you provide some examples? This interests me, though it's hard to discuss without knowing what, exactly, you mean when you say anti-religion. I don't see that coming out of America, and even here in Australia, where religion is barely mentioned at all, when it is there's a kind of wheedling assumption that it's a good thing, all of the time.

Secular and anti religion aren't synonyms.

I do believe, honey, they speak of whenever Hollywood does portray Christians: its over the top ridiculous Christians. Just like gay men are usually represented by metrosexual drama queens and New Jerseans are loud mouthed materialists, or Hollywood wives are portrayed as Barbiedoll plastic surgeon creations rather than the majority moderates that they actually represent. This is-- in my opinion--theatrics, not bias.

(May 15, 2013 at 7:28 pm)missluckie26 Wrote: x

Sorry, I just had to say something about your sig, it's theologically unsound, at least if it's referring to the God of Abraham.

Start a thread and lets talk about it

(May 15, 2013 at 7:32 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: Sorry, I just had to say something about your sig, it's theologically unsound, at least if it's referring to the God of Abraham.

Which part? And what part of the Abrahamic god isn't unsound..?

(May 15, 2013 at 7:36 pm)Kayenneh Wrote:

(May 15, 2013 at 7:32 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: Sorry, I just had to say something about your sig, it's theologically unsound, at least if it's referring to the God of Abraham.

Which part? And what part of the Abrahamic god isn't unsound..?

That little soliloquy actually has two major flaws; it uses a very subjective term "evil" to try to score a theological point, it underestimates the power that the God of Abraham actually has (assuming it's that God it's referring to). So it is basically completely incorrect and almost laughable, to say it is right requires circular reasoning because you have to define your own terms, and then justify them using your definitions. Academic criticism does not work like that.

I said start a new thread if you wanna talk about it. You're new so I will give you benefit of the doubt with regards to the fact that you may not know that its rude to muddy up a thread with irrelevant subject matter.

(May 15, 2013 at 8:05 pm)missluckie26 Wrote: You're new so I will give you benefit of the doubt with regards to the fact that you may not know that its rude to muddy up a thread with irrelevant subject matter.

Actually, he's been here for over a half a year longer than you

(May 15, 2013 at 8:05 pm)missluckie26 Wrote: I said start a new thread if you wanna talk about it. You're new so I will give you benefit of the doubt with regards to the fact that you may not know that its rude to muddy up a thread with irrelevant subject matter.

Can you see the one year medal I have?