If all you are going to do is lie and B.S. to me, best to ignore me.

That or keep going so that I can make people se3e the lying fool you are.

I probably should ignore you, because it is so obvious to me you are treating me like a straw man. (The straw man fallacy). It clear to me because you don't pay any attention to my word choice, wich I am very careful about.

If you think this is pointless stop reading here. Because I have never told a lie, you simply rote me off by now.

Try your idiocy on the young and stupid with both your distortion of meaning here and in god killing or murdering.

You asked the following

If angels have no free will, how is it that Satan and, they say, a third of the angels rebelled against god?

Thanks for admitting to having corrupt morals, but don't try to put that condition on all of us, especially me. Morals are my specialty.

All are morals come from somewhere is all I'm saying. Who is to say wich is right? Nether of us.

Not to the dead one.

Ok let's assume heaven exists for a moment, let's also assume that your 100% guaranteed to go there. What is the point of preserving life beond
1. Saving others
2. Improvement

Now let's say you aren't going to go to heaven. Well living is simply delaying the inevitable, but I could see why it would be a big deal then.

My bad. The content should have given you a hint that I chose the wrong verse.

Yes I knew. I was just unsure on the how.

In other words, you are saying you are a liar and do not know how god communicates.

No, I'm saying God has many ways to communicate directly or indirectly (because of the sin thing). There is no way we know how God communicated with saten.

That is another lie. It is defined as missing the mark.

Use my prifrased version, here it the actual one if you looked it up yourself.

"an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.'

About the angels
will of there own and no free will are different. In fact the one thing that separates an angel from a demon is the free will. Angles surrender to Gods will thus having no will of there own

So killing without cause when god can cure as well as kill, is not murder to you. This shows how your beliefs have corrupted your moral sense.

Of course it has, all our morals are corrupt by are belive for ""good" or "evil",

Secondly all I'm saying is there's a difference between murder and killing. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. The one qualifying thing that makes a killing murder is hate, a solders arn't murders because they hold nothing against the enemy. (Note there are times it is murder but it was because hate was involved).

As to his not being in the presence of sin, did he turn his head when he told Satan to do evil and sins against Job's children and friends?

You might want to read Job 3;2 where god admits to being a sinner himself when he sais that Satan moved him to do harm without a just cause.

I have no clue what your talking about, in the verse you quote literally it says "he said: " an the verse before it is

After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth

So the "He" is clear Job.

Also God has many ways to communicate, we don't know how they communicated.

If the punishment for sin is death, the god is dead. Right?

As I said "In christian theology sin is defined as to disobey God. "
He keeps his promises or as far as we know the promises are left open ended (so room for doubt but not broken).

So out side of that it is a little hard to disobey yourself.

She disobeyed the angle, not god.

The problem here is you don't know your angelology. Angles have no will of there own, that speak nothing except what God wants them to say.

Isn't 10 like a special number in Jewish fate?

Maby but I not Jewish

How is changing it later justified, isn't this basically stating that god said it wrong? Did gods word change? Isn't 10 like a special number in Jewish fate?
The change also seems problematic since it supposes that the family members where actually righteous people. However from the story itself at least for his wive this case seems not well grounded

Well I looked at the story to remind myself. I did make two mistakes the last change is to 10 from 50. He sill only would need to find one it's just that there are more people in this family than I remembered.
And it's not God changing the number, it was Abraham and God simply agrees.
Also yes there is gulit by association but the people he need to find are in absence of that.

How can god [sick] do a final categorizing in to good and evil if those terms have no objective meaning?

It is like this, you have your view of good and evil. Someone somewhere have there view of good and evil. They may not be all the same.
Now (I know all the problems with what I'm about to say) how dose God know what is good and evil? Divine command theory he decides.
By saying that good and evil have no objective meaning I'm really saying, what you call good an evil and what he calls good and evil may not always be the same.

However I should say there is a common ground
Good being it should be done
Evil being it shouldn't be done

I hope I didn't make things to confusing.

what exactly was the sin she committed in your view? Associating?

ok this is something I should make clear. In christian theology sin is defined as to disobey God.

Also when I said

there's not sum universal standard of them.

I was furthing my point that good and evil have no objective meaning.

lot was trying to bargan for the cites safety.
In realty he only need to find 6, because he and his family.
Later the number was lowered to 5, so he only need to find one.

As for

However Lot's wife turns in to a pillar of salt due to reassociating by the act of looking back.

As mentioned the punishment for sin is death

Now I think the entire introduced concept of guilt by association is problematic. Other instances of the same principle would be original sin and the connected concepts f.e. limbo(referring to edge of hell for infant deaths)

That is why God sent his son.

I'll say this thought, what is good and evil is different for everyone, there's not sum universal standard of them.

yes, here is why. God loves humans, however he cannot be in the present ofor sin. The punishment of sin is death. Murder implys hate. This paradox is probably were your idea came from.

the church is so reliant on context I basically need the storys. But for the time being I think your using murder in place of killings

If you're going to talk about this, I'm going to need a more specific example of Christians calling evil, good.

no Galaxies are made (ultimately) of matter. The distance between two entity composed of matter is expanding, but that doesn't mean there is any more places for them to take up.

maby I should make what I mean by area more clear.

Area, in this context, is all the room matter can be. Astronomers cannot be saying what I call area is expanding or we would know of the answer to this already.

because area cannot expand. The meter is always a meter it will never get longer. However the problem you are making is not your idea

can't be both expanding and infinite

It is that you say space is expanding, not defining what space your talking about and using both when it works to your advantage.

YOU BLINDLY GUESS THAT MATTER CANNOT BE INFINITE.

When I say it believe I'm saying is have a resoning, but there is always room for doubt.
The reason I believe there isn't an infinite about of matter is because of the propertys of infinite things.

And yes I know about the quantum level.

you made classic error. Space can ether be the area or the matter. You have use the word space without defining wich one. You argument is true when applied to matter because it is the matter what we mean when we say it is expanding, and I believe matter cannot be infinite. However when applied to the area no longer applys.

I do it because I've always done it. I never really figure out why but by best gess is because I like to know we're we start and how to get to were we are.

Well I have a quote for this

if you don't dissagree with me, how will I know I'm right?

----Samuel Goldwyn

It's not so much there unsympathetic but more to do with the laws of power.
Law 1. It is in the best interest of someone in power to remain in power, and if they can't leave the position with a good or better standing.

Law 2. If it is in the best remain in power you must make the decision that keeps you in power.

The rest of the laws are specific to the structure of power.

It is because the majority of religions is based on a list of rules.
In the wesleyan version of christianity. It is focused on a relationship with God. We realize it is technically a religion but they say it not one to get past the stereotype that comes with it.

Context always matters.

well I tried to find it but there is one class of philosophy of religion that believes the point of God is that he is illogical and thus has to take a leap of faith. As one example.

There are three reasons I know of.
1. We start with an answer and come up with the proof
2. We started with a different set of postules (assumptions)
3. We actually not worried about being right, we're trying to challenge thought even if we don't believe what we're saying.

But dose it matter, philosophy is about how to think not what to think.
Philosophy is held together by questions not answers.
It is not always logical or is it a exact science.

Philosophy is at it root about making sure you have a reason to what you say what you say and believe what you believe.

I think you right. You answer all the questions I have when trying to answer it.

you not wrong, you understand the question but I was looking for an answer that would envelope all types of people we would consider part of the country.
Myself I think imgrants can become part of the country.

"part of a country" is similar to nationality, however nationality does mean you live there so I had you use different words.

The current theory I have is each country has a set of traits that are associated with them. The problem though is that we can debate the traits.

No you are correct.
Fath is simply something we believe and understand.

Most people have fath in what they see some in logic, ext. I would think it would be extremely hard to find someone without faith in something.

Reinhold Niebuhr

Every Time I Find the Meaning of Life, They Change it

No even if they donated it to the poor it would like cause inflation making everyone worse off

Philosophy is held together by its questions rather than it answers

Sometimes I can say no, and that's okay if people die in the process."?

People are different, however think about it. Why should it matter if I life or die if I'm going to a better place.

I live, ok so I can continue my (on the universe scale) pointless existence.
I die, I go to a place I can be content for an eternity.

As long as you believe and are not on the wrong side, life or death don't matter beond:
A. Improvement
B. Saving others

he answers all prayer.

This will explain it better than me.
https://www.virtualsalt.com/answerprayer.html

language theory says words can change meaning so I will continue to use the word evangelize till we have a new one.

I did say he could say no did I not.

Here's is a comment I have on the topic of quoteingredients scripts
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/242823
no God keep his promise.

There is evidence of God not telling people the entire plan if you count that as liying

First may I ask what you mean by a lie

Secondly God dose answer prayer, he says one of three things: yes, no, or not yet.

To evaglies is to spread a fath. Atheism is the faith there is no God, god or gods. So of course they can.

I think there are several Political stance and everyone is placed on a spectrum of all of them. (The middle being ether uncaring or thing both extremesides have good Ideas)


The political left just stands for radicals and right for keeping with the current traditional Ideological thought.

The idea of political right and left came from how France setup one of there government closer to the end of the revolution. Left being the people against monarchy, the right being those for monarchy.

So I listened to a presentation called Darwin Dout.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.facebook.com/events/marshall-davray-hall-unb/faith-science-series-part-ii/368676190624787/&ved=2ahUKEwi76NW3yonhAhXvTN8KHT7XBnIQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2X2LcKIzbdyqtM6pMwn8tA

Everyone was complaining about my source so I found what I could.

It was given by someone called Ragnar Oborn, yes I read his profile when writing this post

I will admit there is room for doubt but not as much as people are saying.

your talking about a superfficient AI. It will not control us it will kill us.

We don't hate ants but when our goals cross we kill them. That will be are relationship with the AI when it comes.

Could you explain why you think AI will somehow solve the problem because I don't see how it could.

evolution is a leap of fath.

There is the argument.

And you don't have to I just wanted to know what people's thoughts were

"Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. "

This is not my source. However if may be of were got it, however he also had more source like a book on fossils wich said there are no fossils that confirm evolution.

But I'm defending someone else argument so I don't have the sources sadly.

I read the article and looked at it's information came from and asked for a more reliable one.

a series of fossils with no horns then in each generation, (with a time period of who knows) thay get to the point were they do. As long as we have trackable change

I was talking about the site not the fact, I want a more reliable source. Not a group were there using themselves and unreliable sites as there evidence.

one he did not say skull, and fine you can egnror it I can't find his picture any way.

Can you tell me why point 1 is wrong.