Epicurean Paradox

[NoMoreFaith]

wanton describes the situation you have place yourself in I did not so much cherry pick as identified the ques that surround your chosen way of life, and paired it with a legitmate defination for the word wanton.

Yet nonetheless inaccurate.

Even so they still are recognized as Definitions of the word being defined.

Only in the same way "having little depth of colour" is a defintion of obtuse. Using a secondary definition of a word used in a secondary definition =/= primary definition.

As i said if you think a concept is too simple then perhaps you should take a deeper look. I did not move the goal post you simply have been made more aware of them and where they truly stand.

You cannot make someone aware of using a secondary definition of a word from a secondary definition and equate it with the primary.
Let me ask you; Can you act with malicious intent against the will of Thor? Simple concept. Yes or No.

Where people like you get in trouble is when you believe a simple precept is as deep as you initially perceive to be, and make assertions based on what you think you know, rather than ask questions defining the subject being discussed.

The concept was quite simple, and you haven't grasped it yet. Answer the above question.
I make no assertions, I simply respond to your facile ones.

NonBelievers Malicious Intent against the Will of God is a fallacy. It requires a presupposition of God. I understand your point that even if you are not aware of the laws, doesn't not absolve you of the crime. But you cannot call it malicious.
To use the idea of God being your ultimate moral authority, it cannot be malicious if your societies moral code contradicts a biblical one. Why do you maliciously go against the morals set down by Thor. Of course, you said, you put no stock in Thor... so you don't discuss it... oh wait, you do discuss it, because you have malicious intent against the will of Thor by discussing God version 3000.345

I have found (on this web site) if I put out too much information in the beginning it is lost to you all or dismissed and I just have to go back to the original post 3 to 4 times with everyone who does not get the complete precept. Why? Because you all have a closed minded approach to God and Christianity, and seem to believe that you have a complete understanding of what is being discussed no matter what it is. Which has to be corrected in order for us to move forward.

We may interject this rant for a brief interlude.

Simply because we do not accept the bible as absolute proof of the supernatural does not equate to being close-minded. What you are committing is an ad hominem which fails to support your actual argument.

We're listening, you're just not convincing. Theres a big difference.

To put it more simply, you do not refute Plato by redefining Morals.

Which works fine until someone comes in and thinks he knows what is being discussed and feels the "goal posts" have been moved when he finds out things are not as simple as he thought they were.

No feeling, I am stating a fact. You state "malicious intent". We pointed out that a nonbeliever cannot commit malicious intent no more than you can commit malicious intent against the will of a pink unicorn.

Plucked because your actions demanded to be accounted for in such away. Understand whether first run definition or 10th run definition if a definition is apart of the word being defined it is a valid interpretation of the word, even if you don't like it, and it makes you orginal assessment look foolish.

I accept your terms. 10th Run Definition;

Malicious = Wanton = Deliberate = Weighed = Evaluate = Judge = Decide = Conclude = Reason = Sound Judgement

So Sound Judgement is malicious intent against the will of God.

Valid interpretation after a 10th run? Or is your original assessment making you look a little foolish?

I do not hold Thor Anubis in any regard that is why I do not see a need to be apart of those types of discussions. You on the other hand have something compelling you to defend you way of life for the sake of your family.

Why so close minded? Whats wrong with Anubis and Thor?

You may as well ask why you feel compelled to visit an atheist forum to defend your faith in the imaginary. Are you threatened? I suspect not, so why bother? Silly question is silly.

Then ask God to show you some new material.

Ready and waiting.

Then just ask seek and knock as outlined in Luke 11.

Aaah, but "Looking up too much makes you lose perspective." Bugenhagen, Final Fantasy VII

Equally valid.

God is the Father of the natural universe. Perhaps the reason you have not found God is because you are looking in the wrong places.

Maybe, Maybe. Maybe you found a God because you wanted to find one. I suspect we both interpret that differently.

Does it match the bible? (Hint- It does not) Who do you pray to? The God of the bible or "a great number of people?"
If you seek an audience with the almighty God then wouldn't it stand to reason to pray to Him as He has outlined in the bible, and not how popular culture defines prayer?

And of course, if you do so, and receive no answer, then you did it wrong, or had incorrect motives, just like I originally said.
You're getting predictable.

Please by all means, Explain to me "my method of prayer."
Show me where it requires God to do nothing.

Aaah, the shifting of burden of proof fallacy. The only person who has to prove God answer a prayer, is you. We are obligated to prove nothing.

I did not say you wanted eternal life. I have only ever told you how to get the answers for the questions you have directly from God.

Name one instance, where you have asked a question and been given an answer that you could not have obtained merely by considering it yourself.

Now, if we have quite finished playing word games, could you briefly summarise why needless suffering exists where mankind is incapable of preventing it, and explain why a God is not malicious by preventing it.