Religion boops you on the head and claims that the disease is gone.
They were not always separate, or thought of as needed to be separate. A man could hold to certain truths about God, and still be a God scientist. It is only in our time really, that there's this idea that one makes the other less.
Johannes Kepler (he is best known for his laws of planetary motion) for example described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
Science gives us knowledge to cure diseases. It is just a tool. We should be careful not to elevate science to such a godly status. For a lot of people their admiration of science almost takes on a form of worship.
Though you are right that there is an awful amount of scam-artist that boops people on the head there are some legitimate ones, there are people in my own family who have been healed through prayer, and laying on of hands.
Hard to research your individual case with 'prayer-healing' so I'll leave it.
Back in history~ Religion made money. It also educated people to a much greater level than a typical person. Through its education, it attracted bright minds, and built bright minds. Kepler is no exception, you are correct at that. Kepler made a mistake, by crediting a god with the creation of 'all things', and read a god into his discoveries. With the instruments available, the 'science' available, and the ability of Kepler, those factors all played against him. Science is an ever-sharpening blade, and Kepler helped in its sharpening. Kepler was 'selectively' delusional. He required and found proper evidence, when looking at the world around him. If he had just said, "Maybe we orbit a star," without backing it up, he'd be laughed at. Even though the statement is correct, unless he could demonstrate/verify/test/observe/find evidence to support it, no one should believe him. Then, he all of a sudden needs no evidence for a god to exist?
I reference Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'
It is borderlining on ridicule to call someone 'selectively' delusional, and makes me wonder what is in it for you, speaking to someone you consider to be delusional. What do you hope to get out of the conversation?
I know for a lot of people they have to see things to believe it. It has to be hard physical evidence in order for them to consider it true, something you can touch and see for yourself. Consider though if God decided to reveal Himself if people would really accept it. If God appeared to you right now would you not try to rationalize it away? In the Bible Jesus walked around, did all kinds of miracles, healed people, fed people, but people still rejected Him. They refused to accept Him saying who He was, even though He by the standards laid out in their Scriptures had proven Himself to be their messiah. God did all kinds of miracles, and saved the Israelite out of many perils, yet seeing all these things they still rejected Him over and over. That is basically what the entire Old Testament deals with. If extraordinary evidence was not enough for the people that God lived and walked among, will a random extraordinary event be enough, or be interpreted correctly by the people in our time that by and large has rejected the notion of God altogether? What if the extraordinary is in the ordinary? What if the extraordinary would be counterproductive? What if less people would actually come to a saving faith through extraordinary evidence?
Jesus addressed the Scribes and Pharisees demanding signs from Him. The signs He had given were sufficient in all ways;
Matthew 12:38-45
The Sign of Jonah 38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.
43 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”
What if people are tossing out the signs they are receiving? What if they feel a pull on their conscience to believe, which is an act of God, but refuse to accept it, and push it to the back of their mind, or construct all kinds of arguments to keep it at bay? What if by doing that they harden their hearts in such a way that no signs what so ever can get through? What if they are presented with extraordinary evidence, but refuse to accept it, or fail to recognize it?
I'd require evidence to believe in something too.
It is reasonable to believe and accept that which is true and demonstrably correct.
As for the God and Jesus that are described in any Bible, I myself would have a host of questions. I'd require a lot of explanations from these characters. If Jesus were to break in from my roof, I'd become Catholic, after getting some confirmation that it really was Jesus. If Jesus were to 'come again' all of science post-1800's would be thrown to the curb, and everything we know would have to be examined and revised. However, the likelihood of Jesus busting into my house is fairly low, as is that Nazareth exists. This website is fairly blatant, but it checks out.
Scripture is not reliable. It was written from tertiary sources, often over 100 years after the supposed 'events' took place. Testimonies aren't really great evidence, anyway.
God did miracles? Does he do miracles now? If you want to give God credit for design, and miracles, you REALLY have to give him credit where it's due. Every year there are vaccines released to combat bacteria that your god creates. Every year your god causes the worst suffering upon people, by creating viral diseases which ravage third-world countries that lack the sanitation and medicine to combat disease. (I'm hitting a tangent, but this is okay.) Not to mention the Earth not being made for us, it is over 3/4s water, with ever-present dangers of the environment. God creates a flower, sure. He also creates aggressive forms of cancerous cells, that render a person's limb dead.
Same idea, if god were to show himself, that would be undeniable evidence of him existing. Those who deny it, I'd insult.
This is ideological evidence we're talking about. It wouldn't really be counter-intuitive.
Honestly, we're talking about an all-powerful entity here. If he wanted to 'give us signs' he could do FAR better than having his son appear on a piece of toast.
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:49 pm
(Throwing my two cents in here)
Hmmm, where to start. First, let's not forget that science is basically EVERYWHERE. Science is the reason for today's modern medicines, travel, and technology. Science isn't necessarily a bad thing, as much as it is the interpretation of the discovery. Like the invention of dynamite or Facebook. Almost everything that was made with good intentions will ultimately be twisted into something evil (including Christianity). As scientists you are basically observing and studying the world around you. Gravity, the Earth's spherical form, the universe, chemical properties, etc. were always there; it was just a matter of scientists realizing and interpreting it. At base level, science isn't evil. Let's not forget that famous scholars and scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton were also spiritual. However at base level, science has no morals. Whether people like it or not our morals stemmed from religions. Even if your parents or grandparents or friends aren't religious, somewhere down the line, unspoken moral rules were created. Thus different groups of people have different morals that stemmed from family traditions that stemmed from a religion. Long ago when the world was deeply religious, religion created a set of guidelines for how one human should be to another. Disobeying those rules led to consequences. Over time following these morals has been deemed as being a "good person", "human decency", and not "following [said deity's] will". Without religion and being aware of some form of consequence there would be no reason for us to care about how our actions affect another person. People barely care now. "Oh, that person is poor because of me so what?" without consequences from a higher being there, logically, there was no reason to care. You're not obligated to be kind hearted. Over the years the morals have been passed on but without the religion.
BUT BACK TO SCIENCE Basically with those morals being imprinted in our minds scientists would have no reason to limit themselves because basically scientists make up their own rules about what is and isn't "science". Humans have created the profession of being a scientist along with the rules. We define what is and isn't a planet (like back in my day pluto was a planet razz), what is a good scientific study, what's logical etc. Humans create the rules thus science is flawed and scientists change their answers all the time as they discover more and more things. Scientific discoveries are relative to the times and will continue to change because humans are doing the observations. Ex:
- The Earth is flat - Pluto is no longer a planet (not letting that go) -misinterpreting the studies of animals like sharks -different races have different intelligence levels and "special abilities" -leeches are good for medical practices -homosexuals are born that way (I've heard both they are and aren't I don't know and don't really care 'cuz you're gay now rolleyes ) - the universe expands just 'cuz - Finding some bones that match our skeletal make up and creating an entire backstory of our origin without being 100% and basing it off of things like skeletons, unearthing old villages, etc. Basically we would need a time machine for evolution to become fact. And both sides (religious and secular) have made strong points in both and it basically comes down to what you choose to believe because neither is getting proven anytime soon. The problem starts when scientists try to play God. There is no reason at all to be making glowing cats. This combining of animals and genes is what it basically comes down to; playing God. Why? Because they can. Scientists continue to push the limits and toy with nature because they have the power to. I seriously doubt genetically created babies will grow up to be freaks unless something goes wrong in the process (same with regular babies) anything can go wrong whether the baby is born naturally or not. Not saying it's right, just saying.
Christianity and Science have merged throughout history multiple times. Christians aren't cavemen; If we get sick we'll GO SEE A DOCTOR *gasp* and take our medicine and search the internet for wellness tips *oh no!* because we have faith in our doctors *faints* the difference is that we don't believe doctors have the final say. So we will do the standard procedures just like anybody else and use technology like anybody else, we just believe a higher power has the final say in our fates. If your best argument that Christians live in the darkness is that we don't believe in evolution, then your argument is in poor shape.
I hate writing long rants razz
ChibiHigh
Offline
Garland-Green
Friendly Gaian
Offline
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:55 am
Wyzukitan
Garland-Green
Wyzukitan
Garland-Green
Wyzukitan
I'd prefer religion and science stay separate.
Science cures the disease.
Religion boops you on the head and claims that the disease is gone.
They were not always separate, or thought of as needed to be separate. A man could hold to certain truths about God, and still be a God scientist. It is only in our time really, that there's this idea that one makes the other less.
Johannes Kepler (he is best known for his laws of planetary motion) for example described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
Science gives us knowledge to cure diseases. It is just a tool. We should be careful not to elevate science to such a godly status. For a lot of people their admiration of science almost takes on a form of worship.
Though you are right that there is an awful amount of scam-artist that boops people on the head there are some legitimate ones, there are people in my own family who have been healed through prayer, and laying on of hands.
Hard to research your individual case with 'prayer-healing' so I'll leave it.
Back in history~ Religion made money. It also educated people to a much greater level than a typical person. Through its education, it attracted bright minds, and built bright minds. Kepler is no exception, you are correct at that. Kepler made a mistake, by crediting a god with the creation of 'all things', and read a god into his discoveries. With the instruments available, the 'science' available, and the ability of Kepler, those factors all played against him. Science is an ever-sharpening blade, and Kepler helped in its sharpening. Kepler was 'selectively' delusional. He required and found proper evidence, when looking at the world around him. If he had just said, "Maybe we orbit a star," without backing it up, he'd be laughed at. Even though the statement is correct, unless he could demonstrate/verify/test/observe/find evidence to support it, no one should believe him. Then, he all of a sudden needs no evidence for a god to exist?
I reference Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'
It is borderlining on ridicule to call someone 'selectively' delusional, and makes me wonder what is in it for you, speaking to someone you consider to be delusional. What do you hope to get out of the conversation?
I know for a lot of people they have to see things to believe it. It has to be hard physical evidence in order for them to consider it true, something you can touch and see for yourself. Consider though if God decided to reveal Himself if people would really accept it. If God appeared to you right now would you not try to rationalize it away? In the Bible Jesus walked around, did all kinds of miracles, healed people, fed people, but people still rejected Him. They refused to accept Him saying who He was, even though He by the standards laid out in their Scriptures had proven Himself to be their messiah. God did all kinds of miracles, and saved the Israelite out of many perils, yet seeing all these things they still rejected Him over and over. That is basically what the entire Old Testament deals with. If extraordinary evidence was not enough for the people that God lived and walked among, will a random extraordinary event be enough, or be interpreted correctly by the people in our time that by and large has rejected the notion of God altogether? What if the extraordinary is in the ordinary? What if the extraordinary would be counterproductive? What if less people would actually come to a saving faith through extraordinary evidence?
Jesus addressed the Scribes and Pharisees demanding signs from Him. The signs He had given were sufficient in all ways;
Matthew 12:38-45
The Sign of Jonah 38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.
43 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”
What if people are tossing out the signs they are receiving? What if they feel a pull on their conscience to believe, which is an act of God, but refuse to accept it, and push it to the back of their mind, or construct all kinds of arguments to keep it at bay? What if by doing that they harden their hearts in such a way that no signs what so ever can get through? What if they are presented with extraordinary evidence, but refuse to accept it, or fail to recognize it?
I'd require evidence to believe in something too.
It is reasonable to believe and accept that which is true and demonstrably correct.
As for the God and Jesus that are described in any Bible, I myself would have a host of questions. I'd require a lot of explanations from these characters. If Jesus were to break in from my roof, I'd become Catholic, after getting some confirmation that it really was Jesus. If Jesus were to 'come again' all of science post-1800's would be thrown to the curb, and everything we know would have to be examined and revised. However, the likelihood of Jesus busting into my house is fairly low, as is that Nazareth exists. This website is fairly blatant, but it checks out.
Scripture is not reliable. It was written from tertiary sources, often over 100 years after the supposed 'events' took place. Testimonies aren't really great evidence, anyway.
God did miracles? Does he do miracles now? If you want to give God credit for design, and miracles, you REALLY have to give him credit where it's due. Every year there are vaccines released to combat bacteria that your god creates. Every year your god causes the worst suffering upon people, by creating viral diseases which ravage third-world countries that lack the sanitation and medicine to combat disease. (I'm hitting a tangent, but this is okay.) Not to mention the Earth not being made for us, it is over 3/4s water, with ever-present dangers of the environment. God creates a flower, sure. He also creates aggressive forms of cancerous cells, that render a person's limb dead.
Same idea, if god were to show himself, that would be undeniable evidence of him existing. Those who deny it, I'd insult.
This is ideological evidence we're talking about. It wouldn't really be counter-intuitive.
Honestly, we're talking about an all-powerful entity here. If he wanted to 'give us signs' he could do FAR better than having his son appear on a piece of toast.
By the worlds standard yes.
The Bible says blessed are those that believe without seeing.
John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
1 Peter 1:8 Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy,
I am not talking about toasts, or images of virgin Mary appearing on windows. You are right. Those a piddly evidences, and not why I became saved, nor do I consider them worth much notice now that I am saved.
You are not taking into consideration the Fall of man, and the Fall of creation when you say God created cancer, and deadly organisms. Technically everything you see is the result of man's disobedience, that is how the Bible explains the presence of death, illness and evil. God has promised to make all things new, not just creation itself but those that believe in Him, on an internal level, and on an external later on. Those that have believed at one point are in a process of being renewed as a human-being. Their minds (Romans 12:2), their hearts (Ezekiel 36:26), everything.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!
Testimonies are admissible as evidence in court.
I am not going to get into presenting evidence to you just for the sake of having you shoot it down, or get into a debate with you for the sake of winning. I take it from reading your other post that you have developed a system to be more efficient at it, and made kind of a sport of it. I gather that you are talking to, and have talked to more than a few Christians, and you have likely been presented the gospel on more than one occasion, and that your objective is not finding evidence to believe, but to demolish evidence. You have made up your mind about what you will, and what you will not accept. It is not the power of the evidence that you are presented that makes you believe. I am a Christian because of Jesus working in my life, not because I was swayed with some infallible evidence, or that I am not "held" in faith intellectually by the power of that argument, and should that argument prove to be false my faith would crumble. It is the power of what is being preached though it be laid out very simply, and conviction of sin in your life by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:4), and the need for a personal savior that causes a person to reach out to God (2 Corinthians 7:10), not the power of our own mental faculties.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:57 am
Garland-Green
Wyzukitan
Garland-Green
Wyzukitan
Garland-Green
Wyzukitan
I'd prefer religion and science stay separate.
Science cures the disease.
Religion boops you on the head and claims that the disease is gone.
They were not always separate, or thought of as needed to be separate. A man could hold to certain truths about God, and still be a God scientist. It is only in our time really, that there's this idea that one makes the other less.
Johannes Kepler (he is best known for his laws of planetary motion) for example described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
Science gives us knowledge to cure diseases. It is just a tool. We should be careful not to elevate science to such a godly status. For a lot of people their admiration of science almost takes on a form of worship.
Though you are right that there is an awful amount of scam-artist that boops people on the head there are some legitimate ones, there are people in my own family who have been healed through prayer, and laying on of hands.
Hard to research your individual case with 'prayer-healing' so I'll leave it.
Back in history~ Religion made money. It also educated people to a much greater level than a typical person. Through its education, it attracted bright minds, and built bright minds. Kepler is no exception, you are correct at that. Kepler made a mistake, by crediting a god with the creation of 'all things', and read a god into his discoveries. With the instruments available, the 'science' available, and the ability of Kepler, those factors all played against him. Science is an ever-sharpening blade, and Kepler helped in its sharpening. Kepler was 'selectively' delusional. He required and found proper evidence, when looking at the world around him. If he had just said, "Maybe we orbit a star," without backing it up, he'd be laughed at. Even though the statement is correct, unless he could demonstrate/verify/test/observe/find evidence to support it, no one should believe him. Then, he all of a sudden needs no evidence for a god to exist?
I reference Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'
It is borderlining on ridicule to call someone 'selectively' delusional, and makes me wonder what is in it for you, speaking to someone you consider to be delusional. What do you hope to get out of the conversation?
I know for a lot of people they have to see things to believe it. It has to be hard physical evidence in order for them to consider it true, something you can touch and see for yourself. Consider though if God decided to reveal Himself if people would really accept it. If God appeared to you right now would you not try to rationalize it away? In the Bible Jesus walked around, did all kinds of miracles, healed people, fed people, but people still rejected Him. They refused to accept Him saying who He was, even though He by the standards laid out in their Scriptures had proven Himself to be their messiah. God did all kinds of miracles, and saved the Israelite out of many perils, yet seeing all these things they still rejected Him over and over. That is basically what the entire Old Testament deals with. If extraordinary evidence was not enough for the people that God lived and walked among, will a random extraordinary event be enough, or be interpreted correctly by the people in our time that by and large has rejected the notion of God altogether? What if the extraordinary is in the ordinary? What if the extraordinary would be counterproductive? What if less people would actually come to a saving faith through extraordinary evidence?
Jesus addressed the Scribes and Pharisees demanding signs from Him. The signs He had given were sufficient in all ways;
Matthew 12:38-45
The Sign of Jonah 38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.
43 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”
What if people are tossing out the signs they are receiving? What if they feel a pull on their conscience to believe, which is an act of God, but refuse to accept it, and push it to the back of their mind, or construct all kinds of arguments to keep it at bay? What if by doing that they harden their hearts in such a way that no signs what so ever can get through? What if they are presented with extraordinary evidence, but refuse to accept it, or fail to recognize it?
I'd require evidence to believe in something too.
It is reasonable to believe and accept that which is true and demonstrably correct.
As for the God and Jesus that are described in any Bible, I myself would have a host of questions. I'd require a lot of explanations from these characters. If Jesus were to break in from my roof, I'd become Catholic, after getting some confirmation that it really was Jesus. If Jesus were to 'come again' all of science post-1800's would be thrown to the curb, and everything we know would have to be examined and revised. However, the likelihood of Jesus busting into my house is fairly low, as is that Nazareth exists. This website is fairly blatant, but it checks out.
Scripture is not reliable. It was written from tertiary sources, often over 100 years after the supposed 'events' took place. Testimonies aren't really great evidence, anyway.
God did miracles? Does he do miracles now? If you want to give God credit for design, and miracles, you REALLY have to give him credit where it's due. Every year there are vaccines released to combat bacteria that your god creates. Every year your god causes the worst suffering upon people, by creating viral diseases which ravage third-world countries that lack the sanitation and medicine to combat disease. (I'm hitting a tangent, but this is okay.) Not to mention the Earth not being made for us, it is over 3/4s water, with ever-present dangers of the environment. God creates a flower, sure. He also creates aggressive forms of cancerous cells, that render a person's limb dead.
Same idea, if god were to show himself, that would be undeniable evidence of him existing. Those who deny it, I'd insult.
This is ideological evidence we're talking about. It wouldn't really be counter-intuitive.
Honestly, we're talking about an all-powerful entity here. If he wanted to 'give us signs' he could do FAR better than having his son appear on a piece of toast.
By the worlds standard yes.
The Bible says blessed are those that believe without seeing.
John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
1 Peter 1:8 Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy,
I am not talking about toasts, or images of virgin Mary appearing on windows. You are right. Those a piddly evidences, and not why I became saved, nor do I consider them worth much notice now that I am saved.
You are not taking into consideration the Fall of man, and the Fall of creation when you say God created cancer, and deadly organisms. Technically everything you see is the result of man's disobedience, that is how the Bible explains the presence of death, illness and evil. God has promised to make all things new, not just creation itself but those that believe in Him, on an internal level, and on an external later on. Those that have believed at one point are in a process of being renewed as a human-being. Their minds (Romans 12:2), their hearts (Ezekiel 36:26), everything.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!
Testimonies are admissible as evidence in court.
I am not going to get into presenting evidence to you just for the sake of having you shoot it down, or get into a debate with you for the sake of winning. I take it from reading your other post that you have developed a system to be more efficient at it, and made kind of a sport of it. I gather that you are talking to, and have talked to more than a few Christians, and you have likely been presented the gospel on more than one occasion, and that your objective is not finding evidence to believe, but to demolish evidence. You have made up your mind about what you will, and what you will not accept. It is not the power of the evidence that you are presented that makes you believe. I am a Christian because of Jesus working in my life, not because I was swayed with some infallible evidence, or that I am not "held" in faith intellectually by the power of that argument, and should that argument prove to be false my faith would crumble. It is the power of what is being preached though it be laid out very simply, and conviction of sin in your life by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:4), and the need for a personal savior that causes a person to reach out to God (2 Corinthians 7:10), not the power of our own mental faculties.
This is intellectual dishonesty, on your part. The removal of the option to change, should your position be flawed in some way. That's basically why science works, it *thrives* on error. It grows, with every setback and failure. It recognizes those failures, and uses the experience/date/knowledge to move forward. That's why 'science' is a method that I adhere to. The failure on your part to even humor the possibility of being wrong, resulting in correction, is a failure that should be corrected.
This is a fairly simple idea, the actions of humanity in the view of a god. A god has knowledge of, and in most cases dictates, human actions. They created man, have their lives 'planned out'. A god has predetermined every action and thought of man. Given that we're supposedly the 'image' of our god, then isn't god really looking into a metaphorical mirror and getting mad at himself?
For the sake of winning? If I am incorrect, I want to be corrected. Debate and exchange of ideas allow for this.
