B
benedictus2
Guest
Did you miss the many times that Tantum wrote the word SUPPOSE?
- Status
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
No.
No more than I suppose a world filled with peace and love. I can suppose it all day long, and in the end it’s a lot of bumpkus.
What is the useful purpose of supposing such wishful thinking?
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
Not to mention how it would have fried all the guests!
God is so considerate to take this into consideration and make it a quiet and hidden event. Makes me admire and wonder at His humility once again. Thanks for that!
F
FurtherSuntime
Guest
I never think about this mortal sin stuff too much , …Its all basically pure common sense…who could be surprised…it nicely targets the idi amin type
1.Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2.It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
3.It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.
The teaching goes on to say that a grave matter concerns a serious violation of the ten commandments, and continues explaining that some are more serious than others.
We see in #2 above that full knowledge of the
…gravity of the offense , refers to the inborn moral law which is part of
human knowledge…I think this explains the conscience query’s quite well.
So the way I read the teaching…there is no mortal sin if the mind does not consider the act or thought to violate the inborn principals of moral law, a law which is part of human knowledge.
This goes along with what Ive been trying to say…serious sin would be
associated with a defined absolute intentional , repeated act of serious ill- will toward another
.
1.Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2.It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
3.It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.
The teaching goes on to say that a grave matter concerns a serious violation of the ten commandments, and continues explaining that some are more serious than others.
We see in #2 above that full knowledge of the
…gravity of the offense , refers to the inborn moral law which is part of
human knowledge…I think this explains the conscience query’s quite well.
So the way I read the teaching…there is no mortal sin if the mind does not consider the act or thought to violate the inborn principals of moral law, a law which is part of human knowledge.
This goes along with what Ive been trying to say…serious sin would be
associated with a defined absolute intentional , repeated act of serious ill- will toward another
.
S
Spock
Guest
Now to substantiate this, all you have to do is PROVE that the church is right. That there is a God, and this God is exactly what the church proclaims, etc… and there is the rub. You cannot prove it. It is just a myth, nothing more. And as such I discard it. I do NOT accept that there is a “TRUTH” and that the church teaches that.
But that is all irrelevant. What does the church say about those who discard the whole kaboodle, even if they heard about it? Am I in the state of mortal sin or am I simply mistaken? Answer me that simple question, with some official church quote if possible.
It is easy to “proclaim” anything. Where is the beef to prove it?
J
John_Russell_Jr
Guest
… my dear friend ,
… god is the lord of physics , and as you show you cannot solve this problem , but god created physics , but that does not mean god is subject to physics at all , it is ridiculous to place any limitations on god due to laws and rules he created for his creation , god is not bound by any laws and rules at all actually , your thinking is wrong if you think this impossible and the real problem is that youy and none here can solve even one problem let alone one beyond the human mind such as the miracuolous activity of god , to solve a problem you must solve it completely , perfectly and permanently , i have never seen any man even come close to it , we just keep making more problems every time we try to solve one , and it’s out of control , i have solved the millenia old argument " can god create a weight so heavy he cannot lift it ??? " , and related arguments , it includes info on rules and laws and god and i’ll post it fyi dear friends ,
… i don’t have time to show resolutions to all atheistic arguments as they are plenty , but i’ll offer you the resolve of one that has dogged man and the church for millenia and never been answered by any satisfactorily that may help with your work, i’ll quote the argument first then give the answer ,
Problems With Divine Omnipotence
Omnipotence is a part of the concept of deity; God, if he exists, is omnipotent. It is sometimes argued, however, that the concept of omnipotence is paradoxical, logically incoherent, and so that it is logically impossible that there be any being that is omnipotent. This position, if it can be sustained, precludes the existence of God.
The argument that the concept of omnipotence is paradoxical is best introduced by presenting the theist with a dilemma. Any one of a variety of questions—e.g. “Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?” or “Can God create a law that binds himself?”—might be posed in order to introduce this dilemma.
For each of these questions, God, if he exists, will either be capable or incapable of performing the feat described. The atheistic argument is that either alternative forces the conclusion that God is not omnipotent. The argument, constructed using the first of the questions above, therefore has the following structure:
The Paradox of Omnipotence
(1) God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.
(2) If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
(3) If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
Therefore:
(4) God is not omnipotent.
(5) If God exists then he is omnipotent.
Therefore:
(6) God does not exist.
The controversial premises of this argument are the second and the third. Proponents of the argument defend these premises in the following way. If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then there is something that he cannot do, namely lift the rock in question. If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create such a rock. Either way, then, there is something that God cannot do, and if there is something that he cannot do then he cannot be omnipotent.
One response the paradox of omnipotence is to attempt to dissolve the problem. GB Keene argued that statements such as “God cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it”, despite their superficial linguistic structure, affirm rather than deny God’s power.
The most common theistic response to the problem, however, rests on the thought that omnipotence is limited by logical possibility. An omnipotent being, it is suggested, is one that can bring about any logically possible state of affairs. The existence of a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it, though, is arguably a logically impossible state of affairs. God’s inability to create such a rock, it is claimed, therefore does not count against his being omnipotent.
… answer : i’ll give a few examples in answer : take a consecrated communion wafer or host , that is god , and put a little rock on it , and you’ll see that god cannot lift it , but if god performs a miracle he can lift it , sounds funny but true ,
… we see in jesus’ life here he was unable to do things being restricted by the laws of physics , but when he wanted he could do anything miraculously , and not be restricted by the laws of physics , it is not unreasonable to assume jesus could not lift heavy rocks but if he wanted he could perform a miracle and lift the heavy rocks ,
… the ultimate answer to this question is : god can create laws and rules if he wants to , and god can choose to be subject to those laws and rules if he wants to , and no matter what god always remains omnipotent ,
… where all have come unstuck on this problem for millenia is not recognising that it is the laws of physics that govern whether god can lift such a rock or not , and as i say god can choose to be subject to the laws of physics if he wants to or not , and always remains omnipotent no matter what ,
continued -
… god is the lord of physics , and as you show you cannot solve this problem , but god created physics , but that does not mean god is subject to physics at all , it is ridiculous to place any limitations on god due to laws and rules he created for his creation , god is not bound by any laws and rules at all actually , your thinking is wrong if you think this impossible and the real problem is that youy and none here can solve even one problem let alone one beyond the human mind such as the miracuolous activity of god , to solve a problem you must solve it completely , perfectly and permanently , i have never seen any man even come close to it , we just keep making more problems every time we try to solve one , and it’s out of control , i have solved the millenia old argument " can god create a weight so heavy he cannot lift it ??? " , and related arguments , it includes info on rules and laws and god and i’ll post it fyi dear friends ,
… i don’t have time to show resolutions to all atheistic arguments as they are plenty , but i’ll offer you the resolve of one that has dogged man and the church for millenia and never been answered by any satisfactorily that may help with your work, i’ll quote the argument first then give the answer ,
Problems With Divine Omnipotence
Omnipotence is a part of the concept of deity; God, if he exists, is omnipotent. It is sometimes argued, however, that the concept of omnipotence is paradoxical, logically incoherent, and so that it is logically impossible that there be any being that is omnipotent. This position, if it can be sustained, precludes the existence of God.
The argument that the concept of omnipotence is paradoxical is best introduced by presenting the theist with a dilemma. Any one of a variety of questions—e.g. “Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?” or “Can God create a law that binds himself?”—might be posed in order to introduce this dilemma.
For each of these questions, God, if he exists, will either be capable or incapable of performing the feat described. The atheistic argument is that either alternative forces the conclusion that God is not omnipotent. The argument, constructed using the first of the questions above, therefore has the following structure:
The Paradox of Omnipotence
(1) God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.
(2) If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
(3) If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
Therefore:
(4) God is not omnipotent.
(5) If God exists then he is omnipotent.
Therefore:
(6) God does not exist.
The controversial premises of this argument are the second and the third. Proponents of the argument defend these premises in the following way. If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then there is something that he cannot do, namely lift the rock in question. If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create such a rock. Either way, then, there is something that God cannot do, and if there is something that he cannot do then he cannot be omnipotent.
One response the paradox of omnipotence is to attempt to dissolve the problem. GB Keene argued that statements such as “God cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it”, despite their superficial linguistic structure, affirm rather than deny God’s power.
The most common theistic response to the problem, however, rests on the thought that omnipotence is limited by logical possibility. An omnipotent being, it is suggested, is one that can bring about any logically possible state of affairs. The existence of a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it, though, is arguably a logically impossible state of affairs. God’s inability to create such a rock, it is claimed, therefore does not count against his being omnipotent.
… answer : i’ll give a few examples in answer : take a consecrated communion wafer or host , that is god , and put a little rock on it , and you’ll see that god cannot lift it , but if god performs a miracle he can lift it , sounds funny but true ,
… we see in jesus’ life here he was unable to do things being restricted by the laws of physics , but when he wanted he could do anything miraculously , and not be restricted by the laws of physics , it is not unreasonable to assume jesus could not lift heavy rocks but if he wanted he could perform a miracle and lift the heavy rocks ,
… the ultimate answer to this question is : god can create laws and rules if he wants to , and god can choose to be subject to those laws and rules if he wants to , and no matter what god always remains omnipotent ,
… where all have come unstuck on this problem for millenia is not recognising that it is the laws of physics that govern whether god can lift such a rock or not , and as i say god can choose to be subject to the laws of physics if he wants to or not , and always remains omnipotent no matter what ,
continued -
J
John_Russell_Jr
Guest
there are other arguments in the same vein like can god create a force so powerful he cannot resist it , the answer is of course he can , as said : the ultimate answer to this question is : god can create laws and rules if he wants to , and god can choose to be subject to those laws and rules if he wants to , and no matter what god always remains omnipotent ,
… i’ll elaborate my answer a little if you like : the q is quite simply can god create laws and rules and then decide to be subject to those laws and rules or not whilst always remaining omnipotent ??? it’s really about laws and rules all these types of q’s , and it can be an infinitesimally smal rock also , the answer is yes to the q when it is understood , god does not have to exercise his omnipotency in order to be omnipotent at all , this should be obvious in the way god deals with us , and the prior examples i gave , just think about it as laws and rules and stop thinking about an infinite rock or force and note god is omnipotent even if he does not use his omnipotency – god does not cease to be omnipotent if he does not use his omnipotency , hope this helps ,
… may god bless and love you all
,
… john …
… i’ll elaborate my answer a little if you like : the q is quite simply can god create laws and rules and then decide to be subject to those laws and rules or not whilst always remaining omnipotent ??? it’s really about laws and rules all these types of q’s , and it can be an infinitesimally smal rock also , the answer is yes to the q when it is understood , god does not have to exercise his omnipotency in order to be omnipotent at all , this should be obvious in the way god deals with us , and the prior examples i gave , just think about it as laws and rules and stop thinking about an infinite rock or force and note god is omnipotent even if he does not use his omnipotency – god does not cease to be omnipotent if he does not use his omnipotency , hope this helps ,
… may god bless and love you all
,… john …
S
Spock
Guest
A punishment can be of three types, excessive (too harsh), lenient (too small) and proper (precisely commensurate to the deed). Only the third kind is “just”. The first kind does not have a special name for it, the second kind is described as “merciful”. It is a mathematical relationship.
- Punishment = crime - justice.
- Punishment > crime - a hanging judge
- Punishment < crime - mercy.
Since the assumed “salvation” is independent from the torture, the alleged salvation does not retroactively justify the torture. The greater good defense rests on the assumption that the end is a logical corollary of the suffering.
It discredits all of them. The two defenses are mutually exclusive. In the greater good defense there is no “gratuitous suffering”, while in the free will defense there is. The same contradiction as we see when contemplating “justice” and “mercy”. You seem to be blind when it comes to contradictions.
The church’s teaching is not relevant.
Which means that he “values” the rapist’s free will over the victim’s free will - which tells tons about his priorities. We correctly try (and sometimes succeed) to prevent an act, rather than sitting and “enjoying” the scenery.
The church’s doctrine is STILL not relevant.
In that case the words “God’s justice” and “God’s mercy” simply lost their meaning. As usual… when running out of arguments, you guys start to redefine words.
So what? Substitute a grater ape into the place of the roach, who burns to death in a fire. Do you still assert that it does not experience pain?
Which translates into: “God does not care about all the suffering”. That was my point all along. Finally we agree on it. That concludes this conversation. Thanks.
F
FurtherSuntime
Guest
I think in order to address the god-pain association maturely it is necessary to have a look at a real but hypothetical situation. A good young man is captured by the enemy and tortured beyond words .
Well…what the **** is this creation all about anyway, thats enough to throw the switch. And its happened , we know this.And now if the youngster survives I suppose he’s all set to proclaim how much God loves him, all dis-figured, girlfriend gone, family embraced but don’t say…
Lets have a look at the theist. The theist can only “believe” a God exists. In the translation however he creates the illusion that somehow he knows God exists… and can answer this question
Unless the theist can rationally explain the nature of God-Love participation in our above event…which he exclaims God to be in his life , the theist is in fact showing that he or she has completely mis-represented the said God and is in a state of contradiction… Excuses or idea’s of free will are smokescreens which are not allowed and are in FACT…
…an.insane .insult to our above fellow human being PERIOD…(wake up and smell the coffee
I have joined the dots and can suggest to myself somewhat of a respectable thought. The idea of my thought is in my last post. This thought is more for thinking on then for rash dumb postings.
Now, the idea of pain in general is a mystery as long as either PS has no answer or a Creator
comes down and explains it. What are you theists thinking anyway…
so the theist knows I suppose that God if there is one(which I believe) was able to create without pain on this scale? The theist was told by God himself I suppose? Come on you guys.
How do you know that the Source of creation was not able to do this for everything to work
and maybe thats one of the reasons the God acceptance to the good man is so real?
The only reason the theist does not know this is because, he wants toi create the impression he knows everything there is to know about this God that he believes exists.
This is a hugely interesting area for another topic , I suppose.
Intense Pain is ridiculous. Its even more ridiculous when its realized to such a degree with all. You would think pain would unify man…no not going in that direction of excuses.
Oh ya…and I’m just writing for expression…just pass it by…I read and my brain thinks the stuff is a fleeting thought which I have in fact produced myself. The momentum then goes about eliminating, sorting , all the dots which I have joined. So…whats out standing here…oh yes this justice mercy idea…
The fact of the matter is that the church simply makes the comment…no one here can answer properly …so the FS thought…in review of my last post it can be noticed that I have a different thought on nature God . If this idea is true…and basically if an intelligent god exists, the idea
is strong…the whole idea in this judgment idea comes into a more rational perspective.
the individual is then not actually judged but consists of a value which represents the goodness in caring through life, a measure in the soul. God then remains impervious to hate and the hater.
This is good…There are many more dots here, but I got a dental tom, had a crazy busy day (and gotta go…its all about being reasonable in everything…its gotta all fit in.
Well…what the **** is this creation all about anyway, thats enough to throw the switch. And its happened , we know this.And now if the youngster survives I suppose he’s all set to proclaim how much God loves him, all dis-figured, girlfriend gone, family embraced but don’t say…
Lets have a look at the theist. The theist can only “believe” a God exists. In the translation however he creates the illusion that somehow he knows God exists… and can answer this question
Unless the theist can rationally explain the nature of God-Love participation in our above event…which he exclaims God to be in his life , the theist is in fact showing that he or she has completely mis-represented the said God and is in a state of contradiction… Excuses or idea’s of free will are smokescreens which are not allowed and are in FACT…
…an.insane .insult to our above fellow human being PERIOD…(wake up and smell the coffee
I have joined the dots and can suggest to myself somewhat of a respectable thought. The idea of my thought is in my last post. This thought is more for thinking on then for rash dumb postings.
Now, the idea of pain in general is a mystery as long as either PS has no answer or a Creator
comes down and explains it. What are you theists thinking anyway…
so the theist knows I suppose that God if there is one(which I believe) was able to create without pain on this scale? The theist was told by God himself I suppose? Come on you guys.
How do you know that the Source of creation was not able to do this for everything to work
and maybe thats one of the reasons the God acceptance to the good man is so real?
The only reason the theist does not know this is because, he wants toi create the impression he knows everything there is to know about this God that he believes exists.
This is a hugely interesting area for another topic , I suppose.
Intense Pain is ridiculous. Its even more ridiculous when its realized to such a degree with all. You would think pain would unify man…no not going in that direction of excuses.
Oh ya…and I’m just writing for expression…just pass it by…I read and my brain thinks the stuff is a fleeting thought which I have in fact produced myself. The momentum then goes about eliminating, sorting , all the dots which I have joined. So…whats out standing here…oh yes this justice mercy idea…
The fact of the matter is that the church simply makes the comment…no one here can answer properly …so the FS thought…in review of my last post it can be noticed that I have a different thought on nature God . If this idea is true…and basically if an intelligent god exists, the idea
is strong…the whole idea in this judgment idea comes into a more rational perspective.
the individual is then not actually judged but consists of a value which represents the goodness in caring through life, a measure in the soul. God then remains impervious to hate and the hater.
This is good…There are many more dots here, but I got a dental tom, had a crazy busy day (and gotta go…its all about being reasonable in everything…its gotta all fit in.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Then maybe you should back track in the conversation and think why Tantum went on the “suppose” track and find Spocks’s previous post and then maybe it will make sense.
B
benedictus2
Guest
How lovely. I like that.Not to mention how it would have fried all the guests!
God is so considerate to take this into consideration and make it a quiet and hidden event. Makes me admire and wonder at His humility once again. Thanks for that!
J
John_Russell_Jr
Guest
… dear spock ,
… your points seem good and to be honest i’ve been through virtually all atheistic philosophical arguments and you win hands down on over 80 % of them vs current understanding of christianity , but if you really want to see answers that a catholic can offer to refute all atheistic arguments try me , mine are all original and you’ve never heard the like of them , if you really want truth try me , i think you’ll ignore me but the challenge is there , i’m not a scientist so just stick to the rest and one by one i’ll offer you solutions to all the problems , and see for yourself if i make sense dear friend , from what i see of above your way off the mark but you have not had great answers often it looks like , you have nothing to lose , try one or two of the toughest q’s and let’s see if together we can’t solve the problems and find out the truth , my answers are unique so may take some thinking , bear this in mind , you may not understand them at first , but human communication is supposed to be a dialogue of solving problems in the pursui of truth , and not a 2 min reply alone , talk to me without language and code i may not understand , i’m sure your intelligent enough to do that , let’s give it a go dear friend , try me ,
… may god bless and love you
,… john …
… p.s … am i right ??? , are you afraid of the challenge ???
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Again, there are cases, especially the death penalty and torture, which are both “merciful” (in the sense of giving the criminal a better alternative to the original) and just (in the sense of punishing the criminal). Nothing else you really answered.
I pointed out below that there is a logical corollary, so your point is moot.
The free will defense is not built on the suffering being “un-gratuitous”. Even if the suffering is justified, the free will defense still stands as an additional reason to believe it was God’s best action not to intervene.
You seem to be delusional when it comes to pointing them out.
It’s very relevant. If you are arguing that THE CATHOLIC God fails to justify the suffering, you must consider CATHOLIC teaching on God’s actions regarding the nature of heaven. Now, if you asked for Scriptural or Ethical proof of this doctrine, we would have an objection. But for now all we have is you ignoring what you don’t like. Again.
How does God break the girl’s free will? Not letting her escape?
First of all, she still keeps free will there (at WORST, she loses the ability to IMPLEMENT it).
Second, it is not God’s fault she “loses” free will.
Third, if God were to grant full freedom of will and action in every just cause, he would effectively have to control the entire world, including numerous people’s choices, fates, and abilities. It is easier (for us, not God, who COULD do it if He so choose) and probably all around more effective to justify suffering later as deserved than do that.
Just like your opinion.
No, I have reasons behind this (by the way, this one assertion is NOTHING compared to the amount of loaded language you’ve used). Let’s look at them and see:
- Putting people in prison does not break their free will permanently, as God’s actions would. Many people get out of prison just to steal, rape, murder, and con again.
- That punishment is TEMPORARY. God’s direct action has negative mental (at best) effects on the criminal.
- The Justice system is explicitly designed to keep criminals out of society and hope they change, often correlated with punishment. God’s plan is not built, in part or in whole, on the former criteria and is built solely on deserved loss (or worse).
- The justice system does not care if the criminal repents after the fact (with exceptions). God’s plan takes into account the possibility of repenting (this ALSO does MORE damage to your “mercy vs. justice” argument).
No, but my other defenses still remain.
No, God DOES care. He simply knows that the BEST OPTION is to let the ecosystem exist AS IS and not cause any disturbance or dependence.
If you’re actually out the door, you just admitted that you couldn’t answer my objections.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
What America calls the justified “death penalty”, is really unjustified “vengeance killings”.
There is a difference between taking life because necessity forces us to do so in-order to protect the community, and taking life merely because we think they deserve to die.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, you didn’t.
I was trying to explain to Spock that the Catholic Church does not invent truths, the Church PROCLAIMS the Truth.
God exists because He exists. That is a truth which people can either discover --using their reason and intellect to explore all the evidence including the Scripture and the other teachings which the Christian world possesses, or which they can reject.
Once a person accepts the truth that God exists, THEN the person can start exploring all the other teachings which again are out there (proclaimed by the Church) for people to accept or reject.
What I say is that the Church doesn’t make up things like “God”, “God is Three Divine Persons in One God”, “Jesus Christ suffered, died, and rose for us”, “God loves us”, etc. These are not things ‘dreamt up’ by people and foisted onto others, ‘revamped’ to appeal to successive generations, ‘rewritten’ by the latest ‘players’. They are eternal truths.
God existed before humanity and will exist eternally.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
You’re right. I meant to say wavering death penalties and torture.
M
ManOnFire
Guest
God could have stopped time, then spilled the water out of the jug, then went to a second man’s home, poured one third of the wine from three jugs into the cana jug,then returned it, then restarted time again. Done. Easier than poofing a universe from nothing. 
The father from the second home would then scold his teenage son for camel-riding-while-intoxicated when he discovers that his three jugs are not full.
The father from the second home would then scold his teenage son for camel-riding-while-intoxicated when he discovers that his three jugs are not full.
F
FurtherSuntime
Guest
Been going through this pieman trying to get a handle on your sketch of God.
I am walking down the street. The little girl you speak of is being attacked. I am stunned in the first nano seconds and headed exactly in that direction just a few feet away. As I arrive closer I notice that the attacker is my boss.
Now…here we are. I decide and feel that I care… however simply know that the best option is to let the eco-system of my employment related considerations, exist as is and not cause any disturbance or dependence. Here in this defense I clearly have your full approval as you fully
remark a worthy reason for Gods non interference…look here
Pieman says:
No, God DOES care. He simply knows that the BEST OPTION is to let the ecosystem exist AS IS and not cause any disturbance or dependence.
( theres a few in-complete things with my last night post…re the God acceptence known to man…
obviously good people know apart from “words” their on the right track …life rewards the good willed in many different ways…no words required)
I am walking down the street. The little girl you speak of is being attacked. I am stunned in the first nano seconds and headed exactly in that direction just a few feet away. As I arrive closer I notice that the attacker is my boss.
Now…here we are. I decide and feel that I care… however simply know that the best option is to let the eco-system of my employment related considerations, exist as is and not cause any disturbance or dependence. Here in this defense I clearly have your full approval as you fully
remark a worthy reason for Gods non interference…look here
Pieman says:
No, God DOES care. He simply knows that the BEST OPTION is to let the ecosystem exist AS IS and not cause any disturbance or dependence.
( theres a few in-complete things with my last night post…re the God acceptence known to man…
obviously good people know apart from “words” their on the right track …life rewards the good willed in many different ways…no words required)
P
Pieman333272
Guest
I meant a natural/biological ecosystem, the kind where a slight change can result in several forms of life becoming extinct. Your job does not offer a warranted parallel.
Besides, if you actually read what I wrote, I never employed the “ecosystem” defense in the little girl example. I only employed it in the cockroach example.
F
FurtherSuntime
Guest
You can’t…only employ as you say… a standard where it suits.you.
If you do… you have no ethic…you boxed yourself into a corner…
- Status