Prayer?

[Drich]

Pretty sure the "original Hebrew" doesn't read like your fantasies Drich, again, the text seems insufficient. You aren't even interested in exploring why? Not in the least?

Lead the way Dora.

---

You must not have understood me. I was saying that Adam and Eve never had a choice to begin with. Is that actually your position?

There was only one choice to be made, and yes it was inevitiable that they would choose to do what was forbidden given enough time. That was apart of God's orginal plan, again if it were the options would not be there.

Before you get tangled up in the greek philosphy of free will know the biblical defination is not as complex. In that 'free will' is the presents of mind to be outside of the Expressed will of God. In otherwords It is the Ablity to sin, and nothing else.
A&E had this ablity via the tree of knoweledge.

Are you even looking at what I am responding to? These statements aren't stand-alone quips, you know. I'll pretend you didn't respond like this to give you another chance.
Just go back to your oxymoronic statement about how there was no blame (God's plan) but God "took responsibility" (for sin, or mistakes) despite it being part of the plan.

It's only oxymoronic, if you can not get past the cathloic model of sin/Choice/Free Will.

Did God ask any of us whether or not we wanted to live forever? Did he ask any of us whether or not we want to be in his "will"?
No.

Do you have any recolection before you were born? Then how can you say no with any certainity?

You can't have choice and "God's plan" in the same belief system. Simple as that.

It's God's Plan that you are given choice/The ablity to sin.

The only meaningful bit of info I got from that was that God is holding out on presents that I should be receiving because giving me these presents would somehow screw up my free will.
In all seriousness, that argument is old and moldy. In the OT his spoke to his heart's content. Were they all convinced? Was that a free will violation?

If you insist on using the term free will and holding the bible/God to your understanding of it, then I ask that you use the same bible to define that term.

The Bible can't be used as evidence for a God. No matter how verifiable the writings are they can't prove a supernatural being. Spectacular claims warrant spectacular evidence, and a pack of novels just doesn't cut it.

again, You are moving the goal posts. This is a fools arguement.
Do seriously not see this or simply do not understand the failed logic here?

If God made himself evident, why wouldn't people hate him?

Why would you assume if someone did not love god they would hate Him. Their are billions of people alive that i do not love and yet do not hate.

He has the power to solve global hunger, to cure cancer, to aid in world peace treaties, to end all illness, poverty, and ill will, and to stop meaningless religious wars all over the world with absolutely no effort at all, but falls back on "Well, remember when I sent vague documents and babbling idiots to tell you of my presence? Yeah, those were legit."
That's a load of shit and you know it.

God is not bound to approach humanity the way you think He should approach us. He has repeatedly (throughout History) only worked with those who put the effort in first. He is not of this culture where flash and excess reign. If you want to know God you will be made to humble yourself before Him. not the other way round. Pain, suffering starvation are all ways to properly humble one's self, or the way to properly fill one's heart with self righteous pride. One act serves two purposes. Either to draw near or further seperate, it all depends on the heart in question.

Quoting a wiki doesn't make my argument go away. I know it is scary, but you are going to have to use your big boy words... you demeaning twat.

What makes your arguement go away is the fact that it has been proved to be a fallacy of logic. whether you understand the term or not. In short I would be in greater error to answer this fallacy than if I simply remain silent. If you insist on an answer It is your job to then rephrase your question to not include a fallacy. Here is a link to a list if you are not familiar with the concept.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy Or to broaden the terms on which a suitable answer can be found.

Still, my analogy holds because it shows the only way you might attempt to verify what is said in a comic book is by comparing it to the real world and trying to see if it is valid.

Actually it doesn't for the very same reason I pointed out in my first response to you. You can not sole source the bible for information about God, then phrase a question based on that sole source material and then Move the Goal post to exclude the very same bible you used to formulate the question to begin with.

Either rephrase your question to exclude biblical precepts about the God you asked, or broaden the base in which acceptable answers can be found.

The Bible isn't a stand alone source of information and requires verification.

Then please provide a list of material that gives detailed descriptions of the God of the Bible that are not based on the bible.

I've read it already. Why does it contradict anything you quoted? Does God answer prayers?

Prayers are not wishes. Prayers are simple praise and petitions that God's will be done despite the personal wants and wishes of the one offering the prayer! Do you understand now? or do you need me to break it down further??? Just in case let me connect the dots. If one truly prays (and not petitions God) then that person is not asking for anything outside the Will of God!!! Meaning God answers prayers but again a Prayer is not something out side of what God orginally wanted in the first place!