Thread: How many frogs do you know?

You fit all those criteria.

So I guess I add you to the list.

BTW: You defecate in the same water you drink too. It's called water-treatment. And you wouldn't have it without the science you despise so much.

Are you talking about frogs that continue to dodge simple points and questions? I think those are the frogs that doubt their own preachings.

and because they do not have the ability to defend themselves through conversation, [/b]

There's at least 5 threads where you've either ignored my questions or just criminally misinterpreted them. Thats just my questions mind you, not to mention kim's, brady's, ITM's, universal's, etc.

-spoon

Interesting symbolic correlation to frogs. but I like frogs so give em a break ey.

kim, pathetic response. Why does it seem like you have to defend yourself here.
to those that did, kinda tells us something about your character ey.

Originally posted by spoon

and because they do not have the ability to defend themselves through conversation,

There's at least 5 threads where you've either ignored my questions or just criminally misinterpreted them. Thats just my questions mind you, not to mention kim's, brady's, ITM's, universal's, etc.

-spoon[/b]

That's okay we'll help you come down...

I've met a few horny toads.


They were French.

Originally posted by Ex Nine
I've met a few horny toads.


They were French.

Yea, and they (The French) frogs eat their own legs.

Originally posted by spoon

and because they do not have the ability to defend themselves through conversation,

There's at least 5 threads where you've either ignored my questions or just criminally misinterpreted them. Thats just my questions mind you, not to mention kim's, brady's, ITM's, universal's, etc.[/b]

As per intense evaluation, of specific posts i.e. ‘mainly from those stated,’ there is a commonality of non-sequitur stated in them constantly, and with no real point in sight, it is a perpetual loop-back, whose point is to flex one’s intellectual muscles, and to dump a vast amount of truly impractical information into the posts, which results in no real gain to the reader.

The Rev.

I think u might have heard the famous story of frog in a well ( by Swami Vivekananda ) " A frog lived in a well. It had lived there for a long time. It was born there and brought up there, and yet was a little, small frog. Of course, the evolutionists were not there then to tell us whether the frog lost its eyes or not, but, for our story's sake, we must take it for granted that it had its eyes, and that it every day cleansed the water of all the worms and bacilli that lived in it with an energy that would do credit to our modern bacteriologists. In this way it went on and became a little sleek and fat. Well, one day another flog that lived in the sea came and fell into the well.

"Where are you form?" "I am from the sea." "The sea! How big is that? Is it as big as my well?" and he took a leap from one side of the well to the other. "My friend," said the frog of the sea, "how do you compare the sea with your little well?" Then the frog took another leap and asked, "Is your sea so big?" "What nonsense you speak, to compare the sea with your well!" "Well, then," said the frog of the well, "nothing can be bigger than my well; there can be nothing bigger than this; this fellow is a liar, so turn him out."

Originally posted by Awaken4e1



As per intense evaluation, of specific posts i.e. ‘mainly from those stated,’ there is a commonality of non-sequitur stated in them constantly, and with no real point in sight, it is a perpetual loop-back, whose point is to flex one’s intellectual muscles, and to dump a vast amount of truly impractical information into the posts, which results in no real gain to the reader.

The Rev.

That is a flat out lie. What does your religion say about doing that? It was pages and pages in a thread before I could get you to give a simple yes/no answer to a very straightforward, short question. You have completely ignored others, and you have dodged and dodged many of my points.

Since you are bearing false witness (against one of the Ten Commandments), let's play again. Here's a point you have repeatedly neglected to counter... An infinitely powerful being would be able to create a universe without suffering and without there being any problems with the complete absence of suffering. Therefore, since suffering exists, if God exists, he is either indifferent or not infinitely powerful. Please finally state your direct counter argument. Direct counter argument. Remember, taking aspects of the point and going off on irrelevant tangents does not qualify as giving a direct counter argument. Thanks.

Originally posted by Universal Mind


That is a flat out lie. What does your religion say about doing that? It was pages and pages in a thread before I could get you to give a simple yes/no answer to a very straightforward, short question. You have completely ignored others, and you have dodged and dodged many of my points.

Since you are bearing false witness (against one of the Ten Commandments), let's play again. Here's a point you have repeatedly neglected to counter... An infinitely powerful being would be able to create a universe without suffering and without there being any problems with the complete absence of suffering. Therefore, since suffering exists, if God exists, he is either indifferent or not infinitely powerful. Please finally state your direct counter argument. Direct counter argument. Remember, taking aspects of the point and going off on irrelevant tangents does not qualify as giving a direct counter argument. Thanks.

As per intense evaluation, of specific posts i.e. ‘mainly from those stated,’ there is a commonality of non-sequitur stated in them constantly, and with no real point in sight, it is a perpetual loop-back,

Again! your reply is of 'no consequence' because; and ‘I will state this as plainly, and as clearly as I can, because you seem to be stuck’

The context in which you are ‘demanding a predetermine supposition that what you believe about God holding Himself to the confines of His own word is by definition a limitation, of which precludes a dismissal of His omnipotent nature which in fact it reveals His omnipotence by showering mercy upon such a rebellious creature as man.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1


As per intense evaluation, of specific posts i.e. ‘mainly from those stated,’ there is a commonality of non-sequitur stated in them constantly, and with no real point in sight, it is a perpetual loop-back,

Again! your reply is of 'no consequence' because; and ‘I will state this as plainly, and as clearly as I can, because you seem to be stuck’

The context in which you are ‘demanding a predetermine supposition that what you believe about God holding Himself to the confines of His own word is by definition a limitation, of which precludes a dismissal of His omnipotent nature which in fact it reveals His omnipotence by showering mercy upon such a rebellious creature as man.

That does not qualify as a counter argument. I said that under the situation you say exists, that God is infinitely powerful, he would have to be indifferent. Holding himself to where he can't eliminate suffering is not a limitation. It is indifference. If you are drowning and I just stand there and watch you, and I say that I am holding myself to not save you, that is not a sign of a lack of power. It is a sign of a lack of concern. God, as you define him, would have to be not infinitely powerful or else indifferent. You only addressed one of those variables, and in a manner that involved a confused interpretation of the other variable. Saying that holding himself is not a lilmitation is not a direct counter. It only addresses one variable in my point, infinite power, when I am talking about a situation of either or. Therefore, your response was not a direct counter argument.

This very example shows the thoroughness with which I argue and the indirect nature of the manner in which you argue. If you would start being direct and thorough, we could get somewhere. I want to understand your view, but getting you to cooperate has been a struggle. Is that how preachers are supposed to behave in these situations? You should be more than interested in helping me understand your answers and counters. Instead, you have been evasive.

"Universal Mind"

Here's a point you have repeatedly neglected to counter... [/b]

An infinitely powerful being would be able to create a universe without suffering and without there being any problems with the complete absence of suffering. [/b]

(Able, yes but why assume God must do what man thinks He should do? Can a finite creature, such as you or I even presume to tell God what He can or can’t do with ‘His’ creation? ‘Thou shalt not tempt the Lord’…)

(There is a key bit of understanding which man fails to comprehend, that the introduction of evil into man’s experience is a purposeful action, to bring man unto the fullness of spiritual maturity, even Jesus Christ himself had to be subject unto suffering to bring all of mankind unto salvation and perfection.)

Heb 5:8 through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered--the obedience,
Heb 5:9 and having been made perfect, he did become to all those obeying him a cause of salvation age-during,

Rom 9:17 for the Writing saith to Pharaoh--`For this very thing I did raise thee up, that I might shew in thee My power, and that My name might be declared in all the land;'
Rom 9:18 so, then, to whom He willeth, He doth kindness, and to whom He willeth, He doth harden.
Rom 9:20 nay, but, O man, who art thou that art answering again to God? shall the thing formed say to Him who did form it , Why me didst thou make thus?
Rom 9:21 hath not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make the one vessel to honour, and the one to dishonour?
Rom 9:22 And if God, willing to shew the wrath and to make known His power, did endure, in much long suffering, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,

Therefore, since suffering exists, if God exists, he is either indifferent or not infinitely powerful. Please finally state your direct counter argument. [/b]

Heb 12:5 and ye have forgotten the exhortation that doth speak fully with you as with sons, `My son, be not despising chastening of the Lord, nor be faint, being reproved by Him,
Heb 12:7 if chastening ye endure, as to sons God beareth Himself to you, for who is a son whom a father doth not chasten?
Heb 12:8 and if ye are apart from chastening, of which all have become partakers, then bastards are ye, and not sons.

(As with any living thing, man must grow beyond his infancy, and to do that he must encounter various degrees of experience, pertaining to creation and its rule. Man was made to rule, and reign over all of God’s creation, and in order to do that man must know all there is to know of God’s creation.)

(Yes, even the unpleasant things, pertaining all that God has given unto him. It is a forgone conclusion to those of faith, and ‘I do not presume to speak for all those of faith’ that God place man under the subjection of vanity not of man’s will. God is desirous that man would partake of all which God has created to bring him to full understanding of His work, and why they are.)

Col 1:9 Because of this, we also, from the day in which we heard, do not cease praying for you, and asking that ye may be filled with the full knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding,
Col 2:10 and ye are in him made full, who is the head of all principality and authority,

(For those who still believe that God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the midst of the garden only ‘to be look at’ are not taking into consideration that God does not tempt man with evil, man’s own carnal mind does.

Although God does use evil, as a tool to allow man’s God given abilities to come forth to maturity through sufferings. For truly man can not be all that God has created him to be if he is not challenged. It is sheer arrogance to presume that if God was this, or that He would do this or that merely because we think He should.)

So, God placed man under the subjection of evil, and suffering to cause him to grow into a Son, not remaining a child but knowing as his Father knows, all things good, and evil, ‘full knowledge.’

Rom 8:20 for to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope,
Heb 6:18 that through two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, a strong comfort we may have who did flee for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us,
Phi 4:12 I have known both to be abased, and I have known to abound; in everything and in all things I have been initiated, both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in want.

(Precluding the fact that man is, and always will be subjected to vanity, until he comes to the realization that vanity hones man’s abilities though experience, and subsequently bring man to the place of knowing as God knows. And to be able to discern between lie, and truth, to be full grown sons, and no longer naive children.)

Jon 2:8 Those observing lying vanities their own mercy forsake.
2Co 5:7 for through faith we walk, not through sight--

(Those who choose to see only evil, and suffering in the world forsake their God given birth right to all things, for they are blinded by circumstance.

We are flesh enveloped beings, and being so we have a void placed within us by God, so that we will seek after him, ‘our Father,’ but in many instants we seek approval from, and set our behavioral standards to, the standards of others in the flesh, God teaches us that this is an inaccurate comparison. Stop judging yourself and your accomplishments by man’s standards.)

2Co 10:12 For we do not make bold to rank or to compare ourselves with certain of those commending themselves, but they, among themselves measuring themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are not wise,

(We are to compare ourselves to Him, and not to ourselves.)

[quote]Direct counter argument. Remember, taking aspects of the point and going off on irrelevant tangents does not qualify as giving a direct counter argument. Thanks.

The Rev.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
\"Universal Mind\"

An infinitely powerful being would be able to create a universe without suffering and without there being any problems with the complete absence of suffering.

Okay, now you tell me you agree with this. That is a milestone in this dialogue. Let's preceed from here...

Therefore, since suffering exists, if God exists, he is either indifferent or not infinitely powerful. Please finally state your direct counter argument. [/b]

[/b]

That point, on the other hand, you still have not countered. You addressed it, but you did not counter it. You just left me Bible verse after Bible verse after Bible verse and belief after belief after belief telling me what laws of reality God works within. That all misses the point that God could change laws of reality if he is infinitely powerful. So my point still stands... If God exists, he is either indifferent or not infinitely powerful. Again, telling me what laws of reality God works within is beside the point that an infinitely powerful being would be able to change the laws of reality without there being any problem with the changes. You analyzed my point as saying that God has to do what people think he should do. That was not my point. My point was that if he is infinitely powerful, he is indifferent to suffering. Refer back to the statemen I quoted first in this post and that you finally agreed with. If God created a universe with suffering when he could have created one without suffering and without there being a problem with the complete absence of suffering, then he has some level of indifference to suffering. You have not countered that specific point.

"Universal Mind"

First this is OFF-TOPIC for this thread; you continue to bring this argument into every other tread I have started.

As long as you are not reading what you want from my replies, you will continue to repeat this same point over, and over again. I have clearly outlined my position as to why God has set things in this reality as they are, but obviously you can not accept that all those stated conditions are a necessary components of man’s growth.

You analyzed my point as saying that God has to do what people think he should do. That was not my point.[/b]

No, I am stating the fact that you believe that because God chooses to limit Himself by His own Word, makes Him less Omnipotent. It does not.

My point was that if he is infinitely powerful, he is indifferent to suffering. Refer back to the statement I quoted first in this post and that you finally agreed with. If God created a universe with suffering when he could have created one without suffering and without there being a problem with the complete absence of suffering, then he has some level of indifference to suffering.[/b]

If God is as you say ‘indifferent’ to suffering, then why did God place ‘Himself’ in the flesh and die for us to set us free from sin, and imperfection?

God could do as you say, but it would not bring to completion His ultimate plan of salvation for ‘all’ mankind.

Every son must be chastened, when he is disobedient or he is a bastard child.

Example: Just as a professional body builder brings his body under tremendous sufferings to grow it unto the desired condition, so also does God bring man under sufferings to grow man into the desired creation i.e. perfection. This is the plan for ‘all God’s sons.

The all encompassing reason for God bringing suffering unto mankind, is so that through man’s sufferings he learns obedience to the spirit of God’s Word. And so that man will retain every experience that he has, so that he will not take for granted the gift of eternal life given to him, in Christ Jesus. He will know the value of what God has given unto him.

And that (He) God has suffered, died, and rose again the third day, so that we could in time of weakness drawn upon His strength for He has suffered everything which He has subjected man unto, yet without sin, being our propitiation.

So, for you to repeatedly say that God is ‘indifferent’ to our sufferings is ‘not’ fact because He has suffered for all mankind, taking our place on the cross for our disobedience.

He did it freely for all, so that the principalities would no longer have control over man, he is free from the darkness of this world.

P.S. The reason you can't accept this as fact, is because you don't know it is fact, and you 'never will' until you receive Jesus Christ as you personal Savior, and receive the Holy Spirit whom will teach you all these things.



The Rev

Awaken, I did not change the subject. You called me a damn frog, so I truthfully pointed out that it is you who is a frog. Your evasiveness shows it. Get it? And again, I do not think and have not said that limiting oneself is a sign of lack of power at all. It is a sign of indifference in the case you are describing. Do I need to say that again? I don't miss your answers and counters. You for the most part haven't been giving them.

You just committed the same fallacy in logic that you have been committing the entire time. You are talking about musts and have to's, which are signs of lack of power. An infinitely powerful being would not HAVE TO limit himself. That is what I am saying. If God is infinitely powerful, he has no musts and have to's. If I put a rule on myself that I can't save you from drowning because I have a plan, I can change the rule I put on myself. If I am INFINITELY POWERFUL, I can change the rule and make it where it never existed, and even make it where there is NO PROBLEM WITH DOING THAT. An infinitely poweful being could unlimit his limits. More importantly, he could have refrained from limiting himself in the first place. If his not doing that results in suffering, then he is indifferent. I can't believe you keep talking about rules an infinitely powerful being would have to follow. An infinitely powerful being would not have to limit himself. Got it yet? If he doesn't have to limit himself and does any way and that results in suffering, then he is indifferent to suffering.

Why did God send himself to Earth, where he already was any way because he is everywhere, in the form of his son, and have his son/self tortured to temporary "death" when he was still living everywhere and then come back to "life" by going to where he had been forever? That didn't happen. It is the most illogical widely accepted concept I have ever heard of. An infinitely powerful being that is not indifferent to suffering would not create the rest of reality from scratch, laws of logic, math, physics, and everything else, and put suffering into the equation, much less his own. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I have asked you time and time again to counter my point that an infinitely powerful being who is not indifferent to suffering would not put suffering into his creation. You have not explained it yet. You keep talking this irrational stuff about limiting himself, which I keep explaining would involve indifference to suffering because he WOULD NOT HAVE TO limit himself. I want to believe in this thing you are talking about, but you are not helping me. All of your responses have been beside the point. You have yet to explain how limiting oneself to allow suffering when one does not have to is not an act of indifference to suffering. If you are drowning, and I limit myself from saving you when I don't have to, how in the world is that not an act of indifference?

Also, don't tell me that I have not accepted Jesus as my savior and that's why I don't understand. I did accept Jesus as my savior, when I was 12. I had been a Christian since early childhood, but I decided, when I did not have to, to go through with a formal baptism when I was 12. I fully believed in what I was doing and seeked to do it. I felt feelings that I at the time believed to be the love and holiness of God. I said "The Lord's Prayer" and sang "Come Into My Heart" in my head every single night before I went to sleep. I was a full blown holy roller. I even got ragged by my friends for being so extremely religious. When I was 16, I started really THINKING, and the concept didn't make sense to me any more when I started doing that. Ever since then (I am 33 now.), I have tried and tried to get Christians to fully explain to me how the idea makes sense, and it has not happened yet. So I ask you again, please fully explain to me how what you are talking about makes sense, considering the very specific logical disagreements I have with it. Thanks.

Kind of reminds me of someone's avatar.

god that cheese makes me hungry X9

I saw a news report about a man who knew how to swim and sat there and watched his two year old son drown in his swimming pool after he left his son by the pool. The man went on trial for criminal negligence. However, he pled that he was unable to save his son from drowning because he deliberately limited himself from doing it. He stated that his son would learn more from drowning, but also said that he could have created far more humane learning methods. He admitted that he could have unlimited himself from the limitation, but stressed the important point that he did limit himself from doing it. The man did report that he limited himself from unlimiting himself, although he could have unlimited himself from limiting himself from unlimiting himself. The prosecution argued that this is a sign of indifference, but the man said that it was not indifference because he could not save his son because he was limited, reiterating that he deliberately limited himself and limited himself from unlimiting himself. He was found not guilty and continued to be idolized by hundreds of millions.

This man was later charged with being a fictional construct. He refused to enter any plea, and was found to be fictional in absentia

The court was also found to be fictional and thus, not a de jure court.

The state ineffably motioned nolle prosequi.

Ok. You are both at a point in the arguement that is not going to have an outcome. I hope that you'll both soon see it for what it is.

Let me try to make both points as simply as I can:

As a father, if my daughter (when she gets older) was blindly, madly, irrepairably (sp) in love with the absolute Wrong Type of Guy, and I knew that this guy was Danger for her (It happens everyday, love can blind you from even the most obvious) then I'm going to do whatever it is I can to make sure that he stays away from her, and vice versa. Does that mean I'm going to be indifferent when she's sobbing her eyes out, screaming how I ruined her life, feeling that her young heart was just shattered into a thousand peices with no hope of ever having it returned to its original state?
I'd like to hope not.....and I'll probably knock out whoever tries to tell me otherwise.

On the other hand. If I was All Powerful, a being with no equal, (after all, if you are All powerful, you have no equal. Yin and Yang would not apply. If God is not all powerful, then he is only 'tied for first' at best) then I could create a universe where the poles of right and wrong do not exist. There is only love. To introduce the variable of "free will" even giving the opportunity to harbor feelings an emotions that would actually Prevent the Perfection of Man, is to skip from 'creating The Perfect Man,' to 'throwing a bunch of unecessary pitfalls to hinders man's process of becoming the Perfect Man that I could have just Made him to be.' After all, "Free Will" isn't exactly Free Will. A man can choose to murder his neighbor, his wife and three kids, but can he Choose to save that kid that is crossing the street, obvliviously, in front of an oncoming semi, if the Willing man is too far away to reach him in time? Free Will has its limitations, even for benevolence, but the will to do evil somehow gets thrown into the mix? I agree that that doesn't quite make sense. The unruly child example had me stuck for a counter, for a moment, but consider this: An unkept child grows up spoiled because he grows more attentive to self, than to anyone else. He isn't restrained for getting out of his 'place' so he sees no reason to stop what he's doing. This 'selfishness' would not arise in an existence that was nothing but Love. It just wouldn't happen. No one would be more important than anyone else, and everyone would Know that, and accept it, thus negating all sin, materialism, and any and all other negativity we all know.

These are both very understandable points of view, though, and the conversation's very interesting. Don't let me stop you.

If you were infinitely powerful - you could just change the guy to be the right type of guy, or change your daughter such that she wouldn't be so heartbroken.