Bleh.

[Jikanu]

You might want to check it again, because I don't remember you replying about God's malevolence thing, and you also did not adequately differentiate between free will and impersonal-ness. You said that he might want us to "come to him", and didn't explain what that meant. When I pointed out that even Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary, you just trailed off.

And you also reverted to saying that you believe in God because of the moral ideas present in the Bible, which can be exercised without the help of a deity.

But then again, it's entirely your choice if you want to stop posting in a thread.


And one last thing, I don't see what your problem is with things being repeated. A debate goes like this.

A: I hold position 1.
B: I hold position 2.

A: Position 2 is wrong because of x and y.
B: But because of p and q, position 2 can be right.
A: I refute p and q because of r and s, therefore position 2 is false.

Now just because A has restated that position 2 is false again, doesn't mean the debate is getting repetitive and circular.

1. Yes, you are correct. I didnt have an answer, and still dont, simply because i dont know how God operates. That's not something any living being can really answer, so it's kinda an unfair question :/

As for malevolence, one could assume that a being at such a higher level as to be able to create all that exists would be interested in things much higher than we, and therefore not have need for greed, hate, etc.

And once again, to the sacrifice of Christ, perhaps there are supernatural rules that God has created for himself to follow. It doesnt limit his omnipotence and omnicience, because it would be more of a choice to limit his powers than anything else.

Also, i think i've come up with something; Perhaps the absolute truth lies partially in different religions. I mean, there ARE similarities between each different religion; i believe a Taoist friend of mine told me that they believe in a god's son being sacrificed; (i dont know the accuracy of this story as i havent researched it very deeply yet); Many Native American tribes believed in a Great Spirit, therefore suggesting monothesim. Perhaps there isnt one specific religion with all the answers, but instead each holds a valuble peice of the puzzle (excluding religions created on greed, and hate, such as the manson family, of course)

2. It got circular because the arguments had no deffinite endpoint and would circle back to repeated topics. Also, you cant simplify both stances since we were debating details in them. it would go like this:

A. I hold Stance 1, 3, and 5
B. I hold stance 2, 4, and 6

A. X and Y disprove stance 2
B. But S and T maneuver around X and Y
A. But C and D Disprove X and Y
B. But stance 4 can reprove stance 2
A. But stance 4 is flawed because of such and such
B. Not if stance two is taken into account.
A. But stance two is flawed because of X and Y.

i couldnt really make a good model for the thread, but you get my basic point...