Re: The right to die : Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:22 pm  

That's what happens when you rely on third parties to do your marketing. He needs to get more hands-on.

Re: The right to die : Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:31 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

...
I'll say it again, its a rubbish master plan if he's relying on individuals like you to do his selling, why doesn't he just enter everyones life like he did yours and then we'd all buy the goods ?

An interesting point, the thing is, kirkstaller is that very rare thing, a man of no faith. If there was a god, with all these laws, fair play to those who believed, without ever being able to know, that would be what all this "faith" stuff is presumably all about.

However we are ourselves blessed since Kirkstaller needs no faith, as he has had a personal meeting with Jesus.

Re: The right to die : Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:58 pm  

Hi there Cookridge I'll try my best to answer your questions. To fully understand my response you might want to have a Bible to hand (doesn't matter which translation). You can find the New Living Translation (IMO the plain English version) here: http://www.biblegateway.com/ Cookridge_Rhino wrote: Kirkstaller, you believe that god created adam and eve knowing full well that they and every single one of their ancestors would fail to live in accordance with the laws he created. Then because they failed to live up to his laws (as he 100% knew would happen) they would have to be punished (for eternity). Have i got you're views right? Yes, I would say I agree with you there. We are all sinful as a result of Adam's original sin (Romans 5:12). 1) If so, why didnt he create humans intelligent enough to be able to see the big picture such that at least 1 person in the entire history of the human race would be able to live up to his laws? It's not really a matter of intelligence. I know exactly what God wants from me, but that doesn't mean that I am able to live a life sans sin. It is our nature to be sinful and even born again Christians struggle with temptation on a daily basis. Now, you may well want to know why God created humans when he knew that we would rebel against him. The Bible tells us that God is omniscient and nothing can happen outside of his knowledge. So, if God knew that Satan would rebel and fall from heaven and that Adam and Eve would sin, yet he created them anyway, it must mean that the fall of mankind was part of God’s sovereign plan from the beginning. So what is God's plan? To answer this question we need to consider the overarching storyline of the Bible. Biblical history can be roughly divided into three main sections: 1) paradise (Genesis 1–2) 2) paradise lost (Genesis 3 – Revelation 20) 3) paradise regained (Revelation 21–22). Bang in the middle of this narrative is the cross. The cross was planned from the very beginning (Acts 2:23). It was foreknown that Christ would go to the cross and give his life as a ransom for many. So, we are left with the following questions: Why create mankind with the knowledge of the fall? Why create mankind knowing that only some would be "saved?" Why send Jesus knowingly to die for a people that knowingly fell into sin? If the storyline moves from paradise, to paradise lost, to paradise regained, why not just go straight to paradise regained and avoid the whole paradise lost interlude? This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. The Bible is our friend. It tells us that God’s purpose was to create a world in which his glory could be manifest in all its fullness - the glory of God is the overarching goal of creation. The universe was created to display God’s glory (Psalm 19:1), and the wrath of God is revealed against those who fail to glorify God (Romans 1:23). Our sin causes us to fall short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23), and in the new heaven and new earth, the glory of God is what will provide light (Revelation 21:23). The glory of God is manifest when His attributes are on perfect display, and the story of redemption is part of that. The best place to see this in the Bible is Romans 9:19-24. Wrath and mercy display the riches of God’s glory, and you cannot get either without the fall of mankind. Therefore, all of these actions—fall, election, redemption, atonement—serve the purpose of glorifying God. When man fell into sin, God’s mercy was immediately displayed in not killing him on the spot. God’s patience was also on display as mankind fell deeper into sin prior to the flood. God’s justice and wrath were on display as he executed judgment during the flood, and God’s mercy and grace were demonstrated as he saved Noah and his family. God’s wrath and justice will be revealed in the future when he deals with Satan once and for all (Revelation 20:7-10). The ultimate exhibition of God’s glory was at the cross where his wrath, justice, and mercy met. The righteous judgment of all sin was executed at the cross, and God’s grace was on display in pouring his wrath for sin on his Son, Jesus, instead of on us. In the end, God will be glorified as his chosen people worship him for all eternity with the angels, and the wicked will also glorify God as his justice and righteousness will finally be vindicated by the eternal punishment of all unrepentant sinners (Philippians 2:11). None of this could have come to pass without the rebellion of Satan and the fall of Adam and Eve. God apparently either inspired the authors of the bible or actuaclly wrote it himself, in doing so he knew for a fact that (according to you) the majority of the people who read the bible would fundamentally misunderstand enough of it that they would be doomed to eternal punishment. What exactly do you mean by misunderstand it? It's worth noting that you can easily be saved without ever reading a Bible, after all, the first Apostles never had a Bible did they? 2) Why didnt he write it (or ensure it was written in such a way) that it wasn't misunderstood by the vast majority of the people who read it? Was he unable to? Or was he not concerned enough about human suffering to bother to do so? p.s. you cant blame this on humans being intrisically too unintelligent to understand it, because you believe you understood it well enough to ensure passage to heaven. Clarify what you mean by misunderstood and I'll get straight back to you. Are you on about people rejecting it or misinterpreting it? 3) a) Do you thus accept it is possible that you are in some instances mistaken about god's intentions and god's will and thus about some of the assertions you make about god? b) If you do not accept a) then do you agree that you can no longer use the 'argument' stated in 3) because you obviously feel capable of understanding with 100% certainty the wishes of god. c) If you do accept a), do you also accept that maybe god approves of euthanasia in cases such as Tony Nicklinson? a) I'm not sure about being mistaken. Certainly there are aspects and facets of his character which the human mind will never be able to comprehend. We can only go on what he has already revealed to us. b) I trust that God has shown us his intentions through Jesus and the Bible. That is his revelation. Whilst I accept it is technically possible that he has other plans, if he does then it runs contrary to what he has already revealed. c) The Bible doesn't explicitly refer to euthanasia. However we know that one of God's commandments instructed us not to kill. We are also told that life is a gift of God. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that God does not approve of man taking the life of others. Kirstaller, i know you are being asked a lot of question in this thread, but can you please try to answer these fairly simple questions for me. If you're busy at least answer 3 as it is on topic. Clarify your points above and I'll get back to you asap.

Hi there Cookridge I'll try my best to answer your questions. To fully understand my response you might want to have a Bible to hand (doesn't matter which translation). You can find the New Living Translation (IMO the plain English version) here: http://www.biblegateway.com/ Cookridge_Rhino wrote: Kirkstaller, you believe that god created adam and eve knowing full well that they and every single one of their ancestors would fail to live in accordance with the laws he created. Then because they failed to live up to his laws (as he 100% knew would happen) they would have to be punished (for eternity). Have i got you're views right? Yes, I would say I agree with you there. We are all sinful as a result of Adam's original sin (Romans 5:12). 1) If so, why didnt he create humans intelligent enough to be able to see the big picture such that at least 1 person in the entire history of the human race would be able to live up to his laws? It's not really a matter of intelligence. I know exactly what God wants from me, but that doesn't mean that I am able to live a life sans sin. It is our nature to be sinful and even born again Christians struggle with temptation on a daily basis. Now, you may well want to know why God created humans when he knew that we would rebel against him. The Bible tells us that God is omniscient and nothing can happen outside of his knowledge. So, if God knew that Satan would rebel and fall from heaven and that Adam and Eve would sin, yet he created them anyway, it must mean that the fall of mankind was part of God’s sovereign plan from the beginning. So what is God's plan? To answer this question we need to consider the overarching storyline of the Bible. Biblical history can be roughly divided into three main sections: 1) paradise (Genesis 1–2) 2) paradise lost (Genesis 3 – Revelation 20) 3) paradise regained (Revelation 21–22). Bang in the middle of this narrative is the cross. The cross was planned from the very beginning (Acts 2:23). It was foreknown that Christ would go to the cross and give his life as a ransom for many. So, we are left with the following questions: Why create mankind with the knowledge of the fall? Why create mankind knowing that only some would be "saved?" Why send Jesus knowingly to die for a people that knowingly fell into sin? If the storyline moves from paradise, to paradise lost, to paradise regained, why not just go straight to paradise regained and avoid the whole paradise lost interlude? This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. The Bible is our friend. It tells us that God’s purpose was to create a world in which his glory could be manifest in all its fullness - the glory of God is the overarching goal of creation. The universe was created to display God’s glory (Psalm 19:1), and the wrath of God is revealed against those who fail to glorify God (Romans 1:23). Our sin causes us to fall short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23), and in the new heaven and new earth, the glory of God is what will provide light (Revelation 21:23). The glory of God is manifest when His attributes are on perfect display, and the story of redemption is part of that. The best place to see this in the Bible is Romans 9:19-24. Wrath and mercy display the riches of God’s glory, and you cannot get either without the fall of mankind. Therefore, all of these actions—fall, election, redemption, atonement—serve the purpose of glorifying God. When man fell into sin, God’s mercy was immediately displayed in not killing him on the spot. God’s patience was also on display as mankind fell deeper into sin prior to the flood. God’s justice and wrath were on display as he executed judgment during the flood, and God’s mercy and grace were demonstrated as he saved Noah and his family. God’s wrath and justice will be revealed in the future when he deals with Satan once and for all (Revelation 20:7-10). The ultimate exhibition of God’s glory was at the cross where his wrath, justice, and mercy met. The righteous judgment of all sin was executed at the cross, and God’s grace was on display in pouring his wrath for sin on his Son, Jesus, instead of on us. In the end, God will be glorified as his chosen people worship him for all eternity with the angels, and the wicked will also glorify God as his justice and righteousness will finally be vindicated by the eternal punishment of all unrepentant sinners (Philippians 2:11). None of this could have come to pass without the rebellion of Satan and the fall of Adam and Eve. God apparently either inspired the authors of the bible or actuaclly wrote it himself, in doing so he knew for a fact that (according to you) the majority of the people who read the bible would fundamentally misunderstand enough of it that they would be doomed to eternal punishment. What exactly do you mean by misunderstand it? It's worth noting that you can easily be saved without ever reading a Bible, after all, the first Apostles never had a Bible did they? 2) Why didnt he write it (or ensure it was written in such a way) that it wasn't misunderstood by the vast majority of the people who read it? Was he unable to? Or was he not concerned enough about human suffering to bother to do so? p.s. you cant blame this on humans being intrisically too unintelligent to understand it, because you believe you understood it well enough to ensure passage to heaven. Clarify what you mean by misunderstood and I'll get straight back to you. Are you on about people rejecting it or misinterpreting it? 3) a) Do you thus accept it is possible that you are in some instances mistaken about god's intentions and god's will and thus about some of the assertions you make about god? b) If you do not accept a) then do you agree that you can no longer use the 'argument' stated in 3) because you obviously feel capable of understanding with 100% certainty the wishes of god. c) If you do accept a), do you also accept that maybe god approves of euthanasia in cases such as Tony Nicklinson? a) I'm not sure about being mistaken. Certainly there are aspects and facets of his character which the human mind will never be able to comprehend. We can only go on what he has already revealed to us. b) I trust that God has shown us his intentions through Jesus and the Bible. That is his revelation. Whilst I accept it is technically possible that he has other plans, if he does then it runs contrary to what he has already revealed. c) The Bible doesn't explicitly refer to euthanasia. However we know that one of God's commandments instructed us not to kill. We are also told that life is a gift of God. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that God does not approve of man taking the life of others. Kirstaller, i know you are being asked a lot of question in this thread, but can you please try to answer these fairly simple questions for me. If you're busy at least answer 3 as it is on topic. Clarify your points above and I'll get back to you asap.

Re: The right to die : Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:01 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

An interesting point, the thing is, kirkstaller is that very rare thing, a man of no faith. If there was a god, with all these laws, fair play to those who believed, without ever being able to know, that would be what all this "faith" stuff is presumably all about.

However we are ourselves blessed since Kirkstaller needs no faith, as he has had a personal meeting with Jesus.

You've ignored me, but for the benefit of others following this thread let me tell you what the biblical definition of faith is.

You described faith as 'I must believe' despite a lack of empirical evidence. However the biblical definition of faith is simply trust on the basis of evidence, rather than despite a lack of it. I trust what the Bible says to be true.

Re: The right to die : Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:43 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

I have not judged anyone.

You have a very short memory.

kirkstaller wrote:

Good job your mother (or any Catholic for that matter) doesn't have any idea what they are talking about.

Re: The right to die : Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:50 pm  

Mintball wrote:

You have a very short memory.

As if that's a judgement.

Re: The right to die : Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:34 pm  

So, if we are all descended from Adam & Eve, then presumably we are all products of incestuous relationships, would that explain why there are a proportion of people born with birth defects or who later develop mental or physical problems? Given also that Adam supposedly lived for 930 years, he must've been banging his daughters and presumable their kids wholesale

It certainly doesn't explain the many different races and creeds though. How did that happen?

Re: The right to die : Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:49 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

The Bible is our friend. It tells us that God’s purpose was to create a world in which his glory could be manifest in all its fullness - the glory of God is the overarching goal of creation.

So it is all just a massive ego trip.

Re: The right to die : Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:53 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

:lol:

As if that's a judgement.

It is a judgment – a subjective opinion – on someone else's faith and religious knowledge and understanding.

You do it quite regularly, actually, with your comments about 'you and you are going to hell'.

Within the terms of your religion, it is not for you to judge the nature of another's relationship with god. Only your god has the right to do that.

Indeed, one might also point out Christ's teaching about not being seen carrying out your devotions – frankly, most of what you do on this forum is a version of that: 'Look at me – I'm the one with a relationship with Jesus; I'm the one who's right and you're all wrong and going to hell. Aren't I so completely the most wonderfully religious person you've ever seen?'

It's in Matthew somewhere – I think Jesus describes people like you as hypocrites.

It's not evangelism. It's showing off. And judgmentalism. Pure and simple.

Re: The right to die : Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:54 pm  

cod'ead wrote: So, if we are all descended from Adam & Eve, then presumably we are all products of incestuous relationships Yes, though before you lay into that concept you might want to remember that abiogenesis has a similar incestuous 'yucky' problem. would that explain why there are a proportion of people born with birth defects or who later develop mental or physical problems? In a way, yes. Death and disease entered the world. This includes certain handicaps. Given also that Adam supposedly lived for 930 years, he must've been banging his daughters and presumable their kids wholesale Not necessarily, he might have left that to his children. In any case, it's no more icky that abiogenesis. It certainly doesn't explain the many different races and creeds though. How did that happen? The Tower of Babel. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

cod'ead wrote: So, if we are all descended from Adam & Eve, then presumably we are all products of incestuous relationships Yes, though before you lay into that concept you might want to remember that abiogenesis has a similar incestuous 'yucky' problem. would that explain why there are a proportion of people born with birth defects or who later develop mental or physical problems? In a way, yes. Death and disease entered the world. This includes certain handicaps. Given also that Adam supposedly lived for 930 years, he must've been banging his daughters and presumable their kids wholesale Not necessarily, he might have left that to his children. In any case, it's no more icky that abiogenesis. It certainly doesn't explain the many different races and creeds though. How did that happen? The Tower of Babel. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV