How do you explain design without a designer?

Originally posted by Darfius
Will and can not. He won't because they knew the consequences and He can't because that would not be justice, and that is one of His attributes.

So God will not nor can not forgive those people that are assigned to hell.
Going back to a point that I raised earlier, is it not one of the gods fundimental lessons brought to us by Jesus, to forgive, "and forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive them". Why has god forsaken one of his own fundimental lessons?

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
So God will not nor can not forgive those people that are assigned to hell.
Going back to a point that I raised earlier, is it not one of the gods fundimental lessons brought to us by Jesus, to forgive, "and forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive them". Why has god forsaken one of his own fundimental lessons?

He hasn't. I am forgived right now, and you could be too. You choose not to be forgiven. Should God not honor your wish?

Originally posted by Darfius
He hasn't. I am forgived right now, and you could be too. You choose not to be forgiven. Should God not honor your wish?

But in the story from luke from earlier, the rich man asked for gods pity, but he refused. ?

Originally posted by Darfius
There is a marked difference between undermining and disproving, wouldn't you say?

Absolutely.
Just because one thing you've posted is demonstrably junk doesn't mean everything you post is junk.
It makes it a lot more likely though.

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
But in the story from luke from earlier, the rich man asked for gods pity, but he refused. ?

I think you answered your own question. The rich man asked for God's pity, not His forgiveness. The rich man knew that there would be punishment if He didn't accept God's forgiveness in the time God alloted and made clear. The rich man's predicament is no one's fault but his own.

Originally posted by Darfius
I think you answered your own question. The rich man asked for God's pity, not His forgiveness. The rich man knew that there would be punishment if He didn't accept God's forgiveness in the time God alloted and made clear. The rich man's predicament is no one's fault but his own.

Fair enough, pity & forgiveness are not the same. But what if the rich man had asked for forgiveness? would he have been forgiven & then accepted into heaven ?

Originally posted by dj2becker
O.K. But if it is entirely relevant to the topic that we are discussing and if I think it is entirely well presented and I if I don't have the time to rewrite the entire section, do you mind? If so then I'll try to make it briefer. But maybe we could stick to the subject being discussed. Many times I have posted stuff that is really relevant to the topic ...[text shortened]... eems as if you don't have an answer and then you take a dig at me for "cutting and pasting."

The problem is not that the material is inappropriate. It's about time and effort. If you don't have time to rewrite the entire section, why should I take the time to address it? It's not that I have the answer or don't; I don't bother to spend the time looking for an answer. I don't have time to analyze every essay somene threw on the internet somewhere. It's unfair to ask me to if you're unwilling to take any time to argue your point yourself.

Originally posted by Darfius
How did you disprove Gilgamesh was Nimrod? Both existed after the Flood.

By the way, Abraham would have had access to Sumerian stories, and they would have had access to real events.

Ok nimrod was post-flood .. so are you ,,that dont make
you Gilgamesh. and for that matter what ever Gilgamesh and Nimrod and Sargon (except that moses " borrowed" some of his story ) Have nothing to do with why the IsraELites named their supreme being after tha bull god El. .. you would think the god of the 10 Cpmmandments would have been a little miffed.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I don't understand this. I give you a lot of stuff that is very relevant to the topic, in fact it totally discredits everything you say. Then you overlook this and instead pick up the last sentence which is not really relevant to the topic and you oppose the claim. I don't know if you are trying to make it seem as if all the rest is discredited by the fa ...[text shortened]... ntists that have noted the above information...", because it seems like you totally ignored it.

Let me ask you something. If I copy paste several pages from some atheistic or evolutionist website, will you analyze the entire thing? What if I do it over, and over, and over, and over...will you take the time to respond to every point I copy pasted every single time I do so?

maybe I should rephrase the last sentence to "...the majority of scientists that have noted the above information..."

You're welcome to do so. How do you know which scientists have noted it and which have not?

Originally posted by Darfius
How did you disprove Gilgamesh was Nimrod? Both existed after the Flood.

By the way, Abraham would have had access to Sumerian stories, and they would have had access to real events.

You are far too impressed with the word "disprove". Can you name anything that has ever been disproved?

Originally posted by Darfius
That would be themselves.

Wrong, according to the book you allegedly follow.

"Luke 12:5 - But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You are far too impressed with the word "disprove". Can you name anything that has ever been disproved?

Nope, and I'll admit, it is a word often employed by me. Does it bother you? If so, I'll try to avoid it.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Wrong, according to the book you allegedly follow.

"Luke 12:5 - But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

You're absolutely right. They choose to go there and He sends them.

Originally posted by Darfius
Nope, and I'll admit, it is a word often employed by me. Does it bother you? If so, I'll try to avoid it.

Does it bother me? I guess it does. It bothers me because it's meaningless to be unable to prove something (depending on how you define 'prove'😉. Because of this, there's no point in bringing up the fact that any one claim is not proveable. However, when you use the word, it seems as though you feel it means something significant if your particular claims cannot be disproven.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Does it bother me? I guess it does. It bothers me because it's meaningless to be unable to prove something (depending on how you define 'prove'😉. Because of this, there's no point in bringing up the fact that any one claim is not proveable. However, when you use the word, it seems as though you feel it means something significant if your particular claims cannot be disproven.

Fair enough, I'll try and present my idea in a different manner.