The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I know everyone is fed-up with FF on this forum and about how every topic appears to gravitate towards him and his beliefs, but I have a genuine question for him.
If the Bible is all fact, as you have repeatedly claimed, then how can their be two creation stories, Genesis 1 & 2?
If the Bible is all fact, as you have repeatedly claimed, then how can their be two creation stories, Genesis 1 & 2?
Page:
Because not everyone believes it and some have obviously started other religions.
If the bible is a fact, why are there so many religions?
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Yeah, the details being that in the first account man and woman are
> created at the same time, and in the second, woman is created after
> man.
>
> Which is the argument, is it not?
They were created on the same day, Eve after Adam, I don't see what the big problem with this is.
> Yeah, the details being that in the first account man and woman are
> created at the same time, and in the second, woman is created after
> man.
>
> Which is the argument, is it not?
They were created on the same day, Eve after Adam, I don't see what the big problem with this is.
Deal? What deal? Satan was being a b!tch and God didn't deliberately intervene in order to prove a point. Its not like he made a pact with the devil.
Geffdof wrote:
> God was trying to show that Job had so much faith in him that he'd put
> up with whatever God allowed to happen because hw knew God had a
> reason for doing it.
That still doesn't change the fact God did a deal with Satan (the necessary evil). Thus my point being - Christianities definition of God is void.
> God was trying to show that Job had so much faith in him that he'd put
> up with whatever God allowed to happen because hw knew God had a
> reason for doing it.
That still doesn't change the fact God did a deal with Satan (the necessary evil). Thus my point being - Christianities definition of God is void.
God was trying to show that Job had so much faith in him that he'd put up with whatever God allowed to happen because hw knew God had a reason for doing it.
Forest Fan wrote:
> er-no wrote:
> FFan.
>
> A priest couldn't answer this:
>
> Why did God bargain(do a deal) with Satan over Job?
>
> Good luck. You'll only contradict yourself.
>
> For one, to show the limited power of Satan as he has to ask
> permission of God.
Still, God still did a deal with evil.
Heh. 'has to ask permission'.
> er-no wrote:
> FFan.
>
> A priest couldn't answer this:
>
> Why did God bargain(do a deal) with Satan over Job?
>
> Good luck. You'll only contradict yourself.
>
> For one, to show the limited power of Satan as he has to ask
> permission of God.
Still, God still did a deal with evil.
Heh. 'has to ask permission'.
Archangel wrote:
> Argument, yes, for you blokes seem to love to do that. It's supposed
> to be discussion, not argument. Accept the facts by faith. Let it
> rest. You won't get so heated up over things and your blood pressure
> will stay down, and you'll live longer.
Well, you may find that a lot of people find Mary to be an objectionably bigoted slug. Hence so many people are only too willing to argue with him. Add his arrogance, ignorance, and all-consuming egocentricity, and I'm sure you can see why I for one take great pleasure in obliterating his arguments.
> They're NOT property. Jesus never viewed them as property. We
> shouldn't either.
Neither did the Prophet Mohammed, and look how his religion has been corrupted.
That's a picky sort of point to make though. I don't agree with what you've said (I believe in absolute equality between the sexes that doesn't have to be justified by a church-compiled book), but cheers for saying it.
> Argument, yes, for you blokes seem to love to do that. It's supposed
> to be discussion, not argument. Accept the facts by faith. Let it
> rest. You won't get so heated up over things and your blood pressure
> will stay down, and you'll live longer.
Well, you may find that a lot of people find Mary to be an objectionably bigoted slug. Hence so many people are only too willing to argue with him. Add his arrogance, ignorance, and all-consuming egocentricity, and I'm sure you can see why I for one take great pleasure in obliterating his arguments.
> They're NOT property. Jesus never viewed them as property. We
> shouldn't either.
Neither did the Prophet Mohammed, and look how his religion has been corrupted.
That's a picky sort of point to make though. I don't agree with what you've said (I believe in absolute equality between the sexes that doesn't have to be justified by a church-compiled book), but cheers for saying it.
Archangel wrote:
> Argument, yes, for you blokes seem to love to do that. It's supposed
> to be discussion, not argument. Accept the facts by faith. Let it
> rest. You won't get so heated up over things and your blood pressure
> will stay down, and you'll live longer.
>
> God created one man and one women in the beginning. (I believe by
> faith.)
> Women subservient to men?
> Paul writes for women to obey their husbands "in the Lord."
> BUT, he also tells men to love their wives "even as Christ loved
> the church, and gave Himself for it." We should give them
> honour, "as unto the weaker vessel," meaning to respect
> them. They're NOT property. Jesus never viewed them as property. We
> shouldn't either.
Ok, discussion. Wrong word to use and I apologise. I am not accepting the fact by faith because I have no faith in a book written by man (yes, I know the argument against it, the fact it is written by man and flawed is my faith). I'm not getting angry about it either, regardless of what you think. The question was raised that both cases of creation cannot be simultaneously true.
As to the property, FF has expressed views in the past that he considers women less than men, they should be subservient.
I find this view offensive, and I'll point out that I find it offensive if I wish.
> Argument, yes, for you blokes seem to love to do that. It's supposed
> to be discussion, not argument. Accept the facts by faith. Let it
> rest. You won't get so heated up over things and your blood pressure
> will stay down, and you'll live longer.
>
> God created one man and one women in the beginning. (I believe by
> faith.)
> Women subservient to men?
> Paul writes for women to obey their husbands "in the Lord."
> BUT, he also tells men to love their wives "even as Christ loved
> the church, and gave Himself for it." We should give them
> honour, "as unto the weaker vessel," meaning to respect
> them. They're NOT property. Jesus never viewed them as property. We
> shouldn't either.
Ok, discussion. Wrong word to use and I apologise. I am not accepting the fact by faith because I have no faith in a book written by man (yes, I know the argument against it, the fact it is written by man and flawed is my faith). I'm not getting angry about it either, regardless of what you think. The question was raised that both cases of creation cannot be simultaneously true.
As to the property, FF has expressed views in the past that he considers women less than men, they should be subservient.
I find this view offensive, and I'll point out that I find it offensive if I wish.
Argument, yes, for you blokes seem to love to do that. It's supposed to be discussion, not argument. Accept the facts by faith. Let it rest. You won't get so heated up over things and your blood pressure will stay down, and you'll live longer.
God created one man and one women in the beginning. (I believe by faith.)
Women subservient to men?
Paul writes for women to obey their husbands "in the Lord." BUT, he also tells men to love their wives "even as Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it." We should give them honour, "as unto the weaker vessel," meaning to respect them. They're NOT property. Jesus never viewed them as property. We shouldn't either.
God created one man and one women in the beginning. (I believe by faith.)
Women subservient to men?
Paul writes for women to obey their husbands "in the Lord." BUT, he also tells men to love their wives "even as Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it." We should give them honour, "as unto the weaker vessel," meaning to respect them. They're NOT property. Jesus never viewed them as property. We shouldn't either.
Page: