NationStates Jolt Archive

Last night I viewed a thread about how Jesus is so bloodthirsty in the Left Behind books. As a Christian and a reader of the entire Left Behind series let me try to correct some people that have the wrong impression about who Jesus is.

Lets start off with an ultimatum by C.S. Lewis from his book Mere Christianity:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. you can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

I would be remiss I if did not include some scripture in this post:

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
A little note here, sin=rebellion against God.

John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

So how does the picture of a judgemental God in Revelation square with the whole Prince of Peace, God is Love found elsewhere in the Bible?
Please look to the first scripture I quoted, it says the wages of sin is death. God is a very righteous and holy God, he abhors sin and rebellion and so it must be punished. On the other hand we have the very picture of Love in the person of Jesus Christ who took the pain, shame, and punishment of the world's sin on His shoulders when He hung on the cross. It is faith in Christ, that He died for yours and my sins, and that He rose again three days later that saves us from the judgement to come.

Now we have the whole judgement seen in Revelation and vividly portrayed in the Left Behind series. Jesus is fulfilling the judgement after giving everyone a fair shake to either accept or reject Him. What is never mentioned about the Left Behind series and this last book is that after the judgement every believer that is left has a personnel time with Jesus where he wipes away their tears and comforts them all at the same time.

Those that have read that scripture above, you are now responsible for what you do with it, accept or reject those claims. Just realize the consequences of this most important decision you'll ever make in your life.

Anyone with questions, just telegram me, or just leave your question as a reply to this post. Though there is no gurantee that I will see your question in this thread.

Jesus was one craaazy cat.

Theres a fairly distinct difference in tone between Jesus and the God of the new testament and the God who killed Cain, tortured Job and squashed Sampson. Its almost as if (shock!!) the Bible doesn't make complete sense all the way through!!

preach my good word to the heathen nationstates masses my child, your reward in my father's kingdom shall be super extra groovy.

I would also point out the whole premise of the left behind series is wrong too :D

Jesus was one craaazy cat.What U.C. is saying is that it's up to you whether to follow or not.

Also, to ask one of Socrates' questions: Is being loved by the gods which makes a thing holy, or it loved by the gods because that thing is holy? Can be rendered here as "why does God brutally punish people who sin?". If their sin is do do something that is against his will, something of which God disapproves (eg: murder), then why would God kill them in turn? If he hate killing, and killing is against his will, then how can he punish a murderer by death? I know that God is above the rules he lays down for us, but why are the rules in place if he will break them? What purpose do they serve?

Theres a fairly distinct difference in tone between Jesus and the God of the new testament and the God who killed Cain, tortured Job and squashed Sampson. Its almost as if (shock!!) the Bible doesn't make complete sense all the way through!!

Please read your Bible before you make these claims, God cursed Cain but did not kill him.

Genesis 4:10-15"The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." Cain said to the LORD , 'My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.'
But the LORD said to him, 'Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.' Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."

Job is not the one that tortured Job, God allowed Satan to do it as a test of Job's faithfullness,

Job 1:12 "The Lord said to Satan, 'Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.'
Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord."

At the end of Job, God blesses him with even more than he had in the beginning because of his faithfullness during such an intense trial.

Sampson was allowed to have his strength back one last time to exact punsishment on the philstines one last time after sinning against the Lord. Sampson knocked down the pillars of the building he was in, not God.

Also, guess what? Who really wrote the Bible? Not god or Jesus, but the Bible is made up of compiled accounts of people after he was dead. He was not a god or even the son of god but he must have been a great demagogue!

If you need proof of this, read the Bible, in Genesis the creation of man and woman is there twice. One with them created equally, a paragraph down, it says the whole Adam's rib story

Everyone has a choice to follow what they believe in. It is wring to try and convert others against their will.

It is wring to try and convert others against their will.

You obviously did not read the last part of my post, let me quote myself:
"Those that have read that scripture above, you are now responsible for what you do with it, accept or reject those claims. Just realize the consequences of this most important decision you'll ever make in your life."
Please explain to me how that is converting others against their will.

The historical record of the Bible is completely accurate as well as the number of manuscripts available from ancient times. There are more manuscripts for the Bible than there are for Homer's epics or for Caesars record of his campaigns in Gaul combined. Yet for some reason, I think its because of the claims that the Bible makes, you reject it as myth.

1 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."

A couple of points to make UC. First off, the "historical" record of the Bible, especially the earliest parts of it, doesn't match up to the archaelogical digs of the last 50 years in the middle east. The timeline of the Israelites' march into the Promised Land doesn't match up with the dated ruins. A good book on the subject is The Bible Unearthed.

Secondly, in your first post, you quote three scriptures while at the same time talking about the words of Jesus. But only one of the sayings in your quotations can be ascribed to Jesus. The other two are from Paul.

The Christian faith as taught by Jesus and the Christian Church as erected by Paul are two unfortunately different things, one hardly bearing any resemblence to the other.

Here's a question for you, UC, as one Christian to another. What is the point of Judgement? What purpose does it serve? What does God gain by it? What, exactly, is the purpose for "punishing" sin? People are expected to make this enternal decision based on no evidence with no understanding of the concepts behind it and a sneaking suspicion that a God who would create all of reality just to destroy it is at best pointless and, at worst, absolutely insane.

As for Jesus "comforting and wiping away their tears", I'm sorry, I have to agree with Bottle on this one. That sort of paints Jesus out as an abusive spouse. Like God's standing around in Heaven smiting people then saying, "See what you made me do because I love you so much?" I don't buy that rationale for men who beat their wives and children so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to buy it for the Creator of All Existance. If that's really his methodology, let horrible things happen and then pass judgement so more horrible things will happen and then at the end of it all, pat you on the head, well, he's a pretty crappy God.

Last night I viewed a thread about how Jesus is so bloodthirsty in the Left Behind books. As a Christian and a reader of the entire Left Behind series let me try to correct some people that have the wrong impression about who Jesus is.

Lets start off with an ultimatum by C.S. Lewis from his book Mere Christianity:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. you can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Which has his false trilemma (lord, liar, lunatic).

I would be remiss I if did not include some scripture in this post:
Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
A little note here, sin=rebellion against God.
Further note: sin is a myth. Eternal life is also a myth.

John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
Runs contra to all judaic teachings.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself."
James 2:26 "For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

So how does the picture of a judgemental God in Revelation square with the whole Prince of Peace, God is Love found elsewhere in the Bible?
Please look to the first scripture I quoted, it says the wages of sin is death. God is a very righteous and holy God, he abhors sin and rebellion and so it must be punished.
If he hates it, why did he create it?

No, satan didn't do it. If you think that, you've not read your bible.


On the other hand we have the very picture of Love in the person of Jesus Christ who took the pain, shame, and punishment of the world's sin on His shoulders when He hung on the cross. It is faith in Christ, that He died for yours and my sins, and that He rose again three days later that saves us from the judgement to come.
Friday noon to Sunday morn is less than 2 days.

Dying-and-rising savior stories aren't part of the Davidic messiah.

Now we have the whole judgement seen in Revelation
That was about Nero being reborn.

Those that have read that scripture above, you are now responsible for what you do with it, accept or reject those claims. Just realize the consequences of this most important decision you'll ever make in your life.
Empty, childish threat. Puerile nonsense.

The historical record of the Bible is completely accurate
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA!

Utter nonsense.


as well as the number of manuscripts available from ancient times.
Irrelevant.

There are more manuscripts for the Bible than there are for Homer's epics or for Caesars record of his campaigns in Gaul combined. Yet for some reason, I think its because of the claims that the Bible makes, you reject it as myth.

Because it is mythology. Global flood? MYTH! Conquest of Canaan? MYTH! Exodus from egypt? MYTH! Dying and rising savior? MYTH!

BAAWA. Are you an idiot? Because you sure prove you are. If you look at both your ancient history books that universities use, not those childish kiddy books that tell you how old the world is.

Your not a great Atheist. I have seen Athiests who argue their point. All you are saying is irrevelant that... or no truth. Your an arrogant individual who has his head between his croutch. Or if your a woman? Sorry, I couldn't tell through all that hair.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, it is the same God in the Old Testament in the New Testament. God is wrathful to those who work against him.

BAAWA. Are you an idiot? Because you sure prove you are. If you look at both your ancient history books that universities use, not those childish kiddy books that tell you how old the world is.

Ancient history books don't say how old the world is (although might mention how old some cultures thought the world was). They tend to leave that to scientists

It was a point to get into his or her thick skull?

That sentence made sense up until the '?', after that, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Wow. Everybody in this thread needs to chill out and realise that the bible is not a divine document. Divinely inspired perhaps, but not divine itself; you can't act like every word is holy because it simply isnt so. The men who held the pens wrote the books that were carefully selected for inclusion in the final text, by other men. Thus from the old to the new testament God didn't change from being a wrathful intolerant deity to a forgiving lovable one, the peoples attitude to what they perceived as God changed.
Anyway, ill let the sh*tstorm continue. Ignorance can be quite funny

Unashamed Christians -

I have some questions for you, not so related to the way this thread has been going (predictable, ;) huh?):

1) do you believe that G-d is the father of Y'shua, biologically speaking, i.e.: that the Holy Spirit was the "seed" that impregnated Mary?

2) do you believe that every world of the Bible is true (within its context, of course, considering things like parabels)?

3) do you believe that Y'shua died late on a friday afternoon and rose on sunday morning?



- Dru

BAAWA. Are you an idiot? Because you sure prove you are. If you look at both your ancient history books that universities use, not those childish kiddy books that tell you how old the world is.
<Stan Marsh>
Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?
</Stan Marsh>

Your not a great Atheist. I have seen Athiests who argue their point. All you are saying is irrevelant that... or no truth. Your an arrogant individual who has his head between his croutch. Or if your a woman? Sorry, I couldn't tell through all that hair.
<Stan Marsh>
Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?
</Stan Marsh>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see, it is the same God in the Old Testament in the New Testament. God is wrathful to those who work against him.
And?

Let's ignore Bawaa's post since he doesn't know how to have a proper discussion.

Post ignored.

Let's ignore Bawaa's post since he doesn't know how to have a proper discussion.

<brrrring brrrrring>

Hello, Mr. Pot? This is Mr. Kettle. You're black.

<click>

<brrrring brrrrring>

Hello, Mr. Pot? This is Mr. Kettle. You're black.

<click>


...LOL!

SOrry, I just found the way he said that to be incredibly funny :p

I find it hard to believe Berkylvania that you are a Christian and yet you do not understand the concept of judgement of sin. Us humans have defiled this earth with our sin and evil, Satan defiled heaven by committing the first sin by declaring himself greater than God. That is why you read at the end of Revelation of the destruction of this present earth and heaven, and the creation of a new earth and heaven. As I said before God abhors evil and sin, it must be punished, but before he punishes us he gives us a way out, that is who Jesus is. The cross is the bridge over the chasm that seperates us from God.

But you say, why does God allow evil? Thats a good question, the only answer I have is from C.S. Lewis:

"If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata--of creatures that worked like machines--would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free."

Oh, and BAAWA, you are taking both Ephesians and James out of context, salvation is based on faith, it is a free gift of God, it cannot be earned. What James is saying is that if I cannot see your faith in the action of good works, I have reason to doubt your faith.

In the end its not going to do any good arguing. I have done my best to at least show the gospel here in this format. It is up to you to reject or deny it. I'll leave you with the words of Jesus himself,

Matthew 10:14-15 " 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. 'Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city."

Since I consider this place to be a virtual city, I'm officially walking away from this debate and shaking the dust off my feet. I will sincerely pray for all of you, I encourage you all to read the gospels, read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and read More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell.

I find it hard to believe Berkylvania that you are a Christian and yet you do not understand the concept of judgement of sin. Us humans have defiled this earth with our sin and evil, Satan defiled heaven by committing the first sin by declaring himself greater than God. That is why you read at the end of Revelation of the destruction of this present earth and heaven, and the creation of a new earth and heaven. As I said before God abhors evil and sin, it must be punished, but before he punishes us he gives us a way out, that is who Jesus is. The cross is the bridge over the chasm that seperates us from God.

But you say, why does God allow evil? Thats a good question, the only answer I have is from C.S. Lewis:

"If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata--of creatures that worked like machines--would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free."

Oh, and BAAWA, you are taking both Ephesians and James out of context, salvation is based on faith, it is a free gift of God, it cannot be earned. What James is saying is that if I cannot see your faith in the action of good works, I have reason to doubt your faith.

In the end its not going to do any good arguing. I have done my best to at least show the gospel here in this format. It is up to you to reject or deny it. I'll leave you with the words of Jesus himself,

Matthew 10:14-15 " 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. 'Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city."

Since I consider this place to be a virtual city, I'm officially walking away from this debate and shaking the dust off my feet. I will sincerely pray for all of you, I encourage you all to read the gospels, read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and read More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell.


Sorry CS Lewis, but frankly, your Narnia books were crap, and so is this :p


Excuse me-why do we need free will to be happy? I thought God was omnipotent. He's ALL powerful. If he wants us to be happy, he can do it without free will.


In the end its not going to do any good arguing. I have done my best to at least show the gospel here in this format. It is up to you to reject or deny it. I'll leave you with the words of Jesus himself

For the record I reject it :p

Last night I viewed a thread about how Jesus is so bloodthirsty in the Left Behind books. As a Christian and a reader of the entire Left Behind series let me try to correct some people that have the wrong impression about who Jesus is.
If you want to look for who's to blame for that mistaken impression, ask yourself who's bombing countries in Jesus' name. Who would Jesus bomb?

The problem with Christianity still boils down to the problem of evil.

If God is omnipotent he can stop evil and suffering.

If God is benevolent he wants to stop evil and suffering.

Evil exists.

Therefore, as the Christian conception of God is both omnipotent and benevolent, the Christian God cannot logically exist.

Q.E.D.

...I'm surprised noby else has used QED until now :p

I find it hard to believe Berkylvania that you are a Christian and yet you do not understand the concept of judgement of sin. Us humans have defiled this earth with our sin and evil,
God is the one who created evil, remember? Is 45:7.


Satan defiled heaven by committing the first sin by declaring himself greater than God.
You don't even know what satan is. It's an adversary. Read Num 22. You will find a SATAN in there, and it's on the side of your god!

That is why you read at the end of Revelation of the destruction of this present earth and heaven, and the creation of a new earth and heaven.
The author of Revelation was afraid that Nero would come back. Also, the 2nd century CE was rife with apolcalyptic literature. You'd know that if you would bother to take your nose out of your bible and do some research.

As I said before God abhors evil and sin,
Then why did he create it?

it must be punished, but before he punishes us he gives us a way out, that is who Jesus is.
Nope. It's sincere, humble, contrite prayer. Jesus has nothing to do with that. In fact, human sacrifice is forbidden, according to the Levitical laws (and thus jesus had to have been killed according to the Levitical laws, but he was not).

But you say, why does God allow evil? Thats a good question, the only answer I have is from C.S. Lewis:
Lewis was a poor apologist. He should have stuck to writing bad kiddie-fic.

"If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad.
Then god must be free to be bad.

And free will is what has made evil possible.
No, god is what makes evil possible.

Why, then, did God give them free will?
He didn't, since he knows everything and created everything. Free will is just an illusion.

Oh, and BAAWA, you are taking both Ephesians and James out of context,
No, I'm not. And if I am, then both you and Lewis are as well. So either I'm not or you're as guilty of it as I am, and thus a hypocrite. What shall it be, little one?

salvation is based on faith, it is a free gift of God, it cannot be earned. What James is saying is that if I cannot see your faith in the action of good works, I have reason to doubt your faith.
Meaning: faith without works is dead.

In the end its not going to do any good arguing. I have done my best to at least show the gospel here in this format. It is up to you to reject or deny it. I'll leave you with the words of Jesus himself,
How about Matt 10:5-6, where jesus tells his disciples to preach only to the jews?

Oh, and Josh McDowell is a proven liar and fraud who has no scholarly standing whatsoever.

How about Matt 10:5-6, where jesus tells his disciples to preach only to the jews?

You know, I said I was going to stay out of this debate but I when I see blatant lies and taking scripture out of context, I have to confront it.

Matthew 28:19-20 " ' Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.' "

Oh, and Josh McDowell is a proven liar and fraud who has no scholarly standing whatsoever.

You want to back that claim up from a credible source?

If you want to look for who's to blame for that mistaken impression, ask yourself who's bombing countries in Jesus' name. Who would Jesus bomb?

The problem with Christianity still boils down to the problem of evil.

If God is omnipotent he can stop evil and suffering.

If God is benevolent he wants to stop evil and suffering.

Evil exists.

Therefore, as the Christian conception of God is both omnipotent and benevolent, the Christian God cannot logically exist.

Q.E.D.
well thats a rather unsophisticated theology
not that some people arent just that unsophisticated but they arent likely to be swayed by logic

there are more sophisticated views that dont end in god being a logical impossibility (not that god is bound by human logic anyway)

read up on what god told job near the end of the book when job finally had had enough and asked god why he was being tortured.

well thats a rather unsophisticated theology
not that some people arent just that unsophisticated but they arent likely to be swayed by logic

there are more sophisticated views that dont end in god being a logical impossibility (not that god is bound by human logic anyway)

read up on what god told job near the end of the book when job finally had had enough and asked god why he was being tortured.

Pfh, I remember that one.

"Why are you questioning me? I'm GOD. You don't ask the questions, puny human!"


Ahhh, reminds me of that good ol' greek mythology...

there are more sophisticated views that dont end in god being a logical impossibility (not that god is bound by human logic anyway)Don't hold us all in suspense. What are they?
Ahhh, reminds me of that good ol' greek mythology...At least the Greeks had the decency to make their gods fun.

"Zeus, why are you turning into a vase of flowers?"

"To pull burds. Don't tell Hera or she'll cut my goolies off"

The worst thing about this thread is that it's got me agreeing with BAAWA. I feel unclean.

Don't you find it odd that, every religious figurehead goes off it to the desert to starve, and comes back claiming a godlike vision. I'm sure if i starved myself for weeks on end, maybe ate a few desert mushrooms to live, I'd see God too. Nor that the Bible was effectivly "Writen" or compiled if you will by Gregorian monks around the 11th century? Who also chose when Jesus was born? Its hard to put faith in somthing that has so obviously been twisted by human ideals that it is nothing like it used to be, surely?

Jesus founded both a false religion(Christianity) and the means to control it(The Illuminati).

How about Matt 10:5-6, where jesus tells his disciples to preach only to the jews?

You know, I said I was going to stay out of this debate but I when I see blatant lies and taking scripture out of context, I have to confront it.

Matt 10:5-6 - These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Pretty clear to me, O Ye Who Loves To Take Verses Out Of Context And Then Accuse Others Of It, In A Blatantly Delicious Bit Of Hypocrisy.


Oh, and Josh McDowell is a proven liar and fraud who has no scholarly standing whatsoever.
You want to back that claim up from a credible source?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_carr/non-messianic.html

Also, why don't you bother to respond to the rest of my post? I can repost it for you if you like. Or even if you don't like.

a misunderstanding about Jesus, he was an arab, so was marry

am i the only one who gets annoyed when they see pictures of baby jesues, jeseus and marry as caucasian, he would most likely have looked like osama bin laden

. . .

Matthew 10:14-15 " 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. 'Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city."

Since I consider this place to be a virtual city, I'm officially walking away from this debate and shaking the dust off my feet. I will sincerely pray for all of you, I encourage you all to read the gospels, read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and read More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell.



Heed - To pay attention to; listen to and consider.

Well, since you have a place here on Jolt, you have been received in this virtual city. And since your thread seems to have gotten a lot of response, obviously people are heeding you. Are they agreeing with you? Not in any great numbers... but before you pronounce a curse on every citizen of this virtual city I recommend that you reread the terms under which you've been authorized to pronounce that curse.



- Dru

P.S.: I had some Qs for you...

Those wuotes about Jesus and by Jesus are truly remarkable. I didn't realize that he spoke perfect English.

Oh, that's right. They are translations of translations of something that someone close to him claims to have heard him say. THen they must be true. ;)

All this reminds me of this great piece I read... let's see if I can find it...

a misunderstanding about Jesus, he was an arab, so was marry

am i the only one who gets annoyed when they see pictures of baby jesues, jeseus and marry as caucasian, he would most likely have looked like osama bin laden
i believe you must mean semetic rather than arab since he was a jew.

and

most people have gotten over it

Pfh, I remember that one.

"Why are you questioning me? I'm GOD. You don't ask the questions, puny human!"


Ahhh, reminds me of that good ol' greek mythology...

he said wtf do YOU know about how to run the universe? where were YOU when i got it all started? (ingnoring of course the stupid beginning of the story where god got into a bet with satan over job.)

god has created an imperfect world. the perfect world is the next one. the suffering of this world is insignificant compared to eternity in paradise.

you dont like it? talk to god about it when you get to heaven, im sure he has a very good explanation.

no im not going to outline a more sophisticated theology than that. i AM an atheist after all. if you are interested there are many more learned people than i am who can enlighten you.

i believe you must mean semetic rather than arab since he was a jew.

and

most people have gotten over it

all jews were arabs then

i believe you must mean semetic rather than arab since he was a jew.

and

most people have gotten over it
Both arabs and jews are semitic people.

no im not going to outline a more sophisticated theology than that. i AM an atheist after all. if you are interested there are many more learned people than i am who can enlighten you.*Looks round* Do you know when they're turning up?

He was not an Arab! He was a Nazereth, a sect of the Jews.

all jews were arabs then

I think you meant semitic - Defined as a descendent of Shem, one from the North African Semitic language group. (Semetic - Back then all Arabs are Semetic but NOT all Semetics were Arabs. This classification included Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians)

Also - the Jews were expelled from Israel whereas the Arabs were not...

They have - and HAD distinct racial DNA traits. Just as a for instance... Jews (race, not religion) can't get Downs Syndrome - genetic impossibility - thought they have an equivalent that all others cannot get. This doesn't apply to Arabs...

However... the story goes that the two come from the same original root - if that is what you mean. The Arabs come from the first born by Shem - by a concubine, while the Jews come from the second born, but legitimate child. Thus the question of entitlement... legitimacy? Or first born? Ahhhh... the joys of religious strife LOL!

Interesting question, though... did the DNA trait exist at THAT point in time? Did the mother's parents have the trait? Or did the trait come out later...

Hmmmm...

. . .

However... the story goes that the two come from the same original root - if that is what you mean. The Arabs come from the first born by Shem - by a concubine, while the Jews come from the second born, but legitimate child. Thus the question of entitlement... legitimacy? Or first born? Ahhhh... the joys of religious strife LOL!

. . .



Actually Abraham was rather farther removed from Shem than that.



. . .

Interesting question, though... did the DNA trait exist at THAT point in time? Did the mother's parents have the trait? Or did the trait come out later...

Hmmmm...

Requires a mix of Science and Creationism to even pose the question. If you believe in what the Bible says, perhaps hereditary diseases came from the mixing of angel and human DNA ...although the Bible does not say where the post-deluvian giants came from.

Theres a fairly distinct difference in tone between Jesus and the God of the new testament and the God who killed Cain, tortured Job and squashed Sampson. Its almost as if (shock!!) the Bible doesn't make complete sense all the way through!!

The New Testament revised and outdated the Old Testament. There are significant changes from Testament to Testament, and God's "attitude" (shall we call it) changed as well. I believe the turning point in God's view on mankind was the Great Flood.

The New Testament revised and outdated the Old Testament. There are significant changes from Testament to Testament, and God's "attitude" (shall we call it) changed as well. I believe the turning point in God's view on mankind was the Great Flood.

If God is perfect, his viewpoint is always correct and should require no change.

If God is perfect, his viewpoint is always correct and should require no change.

If God is perfect, then His application of situational ethics, should He choose to use them, is beyond reproach.

If God is perfect, his viewpoint is always correct and should require no change.


He is always correct, therefore his decision to let mankind survive was correct.

He is always correct, therefore his decision to let mankind survive was correct.

So how did God change his "attitude", then, if he was correct beforehand?

So how did God change his "attitude", then, if he was correct beforehand?


How do you not know that God's decision to spare mankind was not correct? He can do as He pleases, and He is always right. Sorry, semantics will get you nowhere because almost everything can be refuted by the fact that no matter what God is always right, and we as mere mortals are in no position to question His judgement. If you have beef, take it up with Him when you die.

Try reading the Bible, the entire thing. Especially the part about the Great Flood, and how God promised that he would not interfere in mankind's fate any longer. Hence the rainbow at the end of the flood.

How do you not know that God's decision to spare mankind was not correct? He can do as He pleases, and He is always right. Sorry, semantics will get you nowhere because almost everything can be refuted by the fact that no matter what God is always right, and we as mere mortals are in no position to question His judgement. If you have beef, take it up with Him when you die.

Try reading the Bible, the entire thing. Especially the part about the Great Flood, and how God promised that he would not interfere in mankind's fate any longer. Hence the rainbow at the end of the flood.

If God can contradict the universe as He pleases, you've limited him to non-interventionist. Is this correct or did you unintentionally do that?

I did read the bible- all of it. That is why I don't believe in a God of pain and death who punishes his followers and then tells them it was their fault.

There's one thing I love about being a protestant, and that is freedom of interpretation of the Bible. As such, one thing I KNOW (ahh, the things good faith can do) is that most of the Bible is a metaphor. Surely, not everything can be absolutely perfect, particularly because it is the work of humans; creationism is one of the biggest things. One of the theories I have debated before is that the Bible is simply "dumbed down" due to the simplicity of people during those times. Furthermore, many of the so-called "terrible" things God did were not only punishments for sins and such, but also lessons to others who might one day learn of what has happened.

As for atheists, it's truly your decision, but I find it incredibly wrong to argue against someone's religion for whatever reason, unless they started it. I personally cannot understand how the world could be constructed without some outside force, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

There's one thing I love about being a protestant, and that is freedom of interpretation of the Bible. As such, one thing I KNOW (ahh, the things good faith can do) is that most of the Bible is a metaphor. Surely, not everything can be absolutely perfect, particularly because it is the work of humans; creationism is one of the biggest things. One of the theories I have debated before is that the Bible is simply "dumbed down" due to the simplicity of people during those times. Furthermore, many of the so-called "terrible" things God did were not only punishments for sins and such, but also lessons to others who might one day learn of what has happened.




That's a decent statement. But wasn't Gospel of St. Thomas said to be the words of Jesus himself? I might have to look into that abit.

The Bible quotes TWO distinct characteristics of God.

1. He is loving.
2. He is just.

Loving means He is ready to accept you once you are ready to accept Him, and He will forgive all your sins if you truly repent.

A lot of people also forget that God is a just God. If you keep sinning over and over again without repentence, He will have no choice but to cast you out.

People keep asking why a loving God would punish His creations, even His own people. Perhaps if you ask why your own dad would punish you more severely than other kids, then buy you birthday presents to make you happy. God acts like a dad. He is loving, but he is also just. If you put your emphasis on either characteristic, you have been misled.

The Bible quotes TWO distinct characteristics of God.

1. He is loving.
2. He is just.

Loving means He is ready to accept you once you are ready to accept Him, and He will forgive all your sins if you truly repent.

A lot of people also forget that God is a just God. If you keep sinning over and over again without repentence, He will have no choice but to cast you out.

People keep asking why a loving God would punish His creations, even His own people. Perhaps if you ask why your own dad would punish you more severely than other kids, then buy you birthday presents to make you happy. God acts like a dad. He is loving, but he is also just. If you put your emphasis on either characteristic, you have been misled.

Does your dad set you on fire when his discipline doesn't work? Does he slowly torture you for all time if you don't see the error of your ways?

Does your dad set you on fire when his discipline doesn't work? Does he slowly torture you for all time if you don't see the error of your ways?

See? You just see the just side of God. When you see the errors of your ways, He will forgive you and shower you with blessings.

See? You just see the just side of God. When you see the errors of your ways, He will forgive you and shower you with blessings.

No, since I am an atheist he will shower me with eternal torture and damnation. Your God wants to kill and torture me for all eternity.

If your saying that Jesus HAD to be divine becuase of the things he said, then thats quite wrong.
Even if your saying that no one but someone who was divinely inspired could have said those things.....

...that would be mistaken too.

Maybe you forget that Street Preachers, and Messiahs were a dime a dozen in those days.

Or maybe youve never heard of the Bhudda?

All he was, was a man walking around, speaking of peace, and giving good advice on how to conduct yourself, wich on those days..people needed.

Thats it.

It was his followers that re-wrote what he had said, and made him into a divine figure.

See :
"The Gospel of Thomas."

Well you know it doesn't have to be that way doomduckistan? Atheism is really a faith, a faith that there is no God, so whether you like it or not, everyone has faith in something, whether it is the right thing is up to you.

Well you know it doesn't have to be that way doomduckistan? Atheism is really a faith, a faith that there is no God, so whether you like it or not, everyone has faith in something, whether it is the right thing is up to you.

I don't believe in your God, and I frankly don't want to based upon what I've read in the Old Testament. Have you read the OT?

I was saying, if your God does exist, he wants to torture me forever in a flaming pit of lava and brimstone. Rationalize how he loves me when I refuse to believe in him.

Also, you should consider that the Old Testament's afterlife is Sheol, where all people are underground and apart from God reguardless of faith or moral standing. Hell was invented after the Old Testament, either before or at the NT.

Sorry, but the OT God isn't perfect, therefore the christian God isn't perfect. Proof? The flood. And the rainbow.

"Noah, I'm PISSED. Fuck all you guys, this place is GONE. Noah, get your ass in this boat with all these animals and your kids and shit. The rest of this place is gonna be leveled. You Medamned humans went to far."

**some time, give or take 40 days, later**

".....Ah crap. Noah, dude...ah crap man. I'm sorry dude. My bad. I screwed up. Geez. No more of this "blow the world to shit" stuff, k? I promise."


Why would God apologize? Because he made a mistake. But perfect beings can't make a mistake. QED.

Further more...

**where we last left off**

"...Geez. No more of this "blow the world to shit" stuff, k? I promise."

**some time, give or take this one important death, later**

"Alright, call this one 'revelations.' What's basically gonna happen is this: I-well, Jesus that is, but He's also me-look, don't ask-will come back. Man, I'm gonna be PISSED, let Me tell you. I'm gonna be doing TONS of wacked out stuff, like making stars fall and letting big dragons eat stuff. It's gonna seriously suck. But hey-maybe you shouldn't piss Me off."






For the record, I'm going to burn in the pits of hell for all eternity. At least, I am according to some of you fellows ;)

No, since I am an atheist he will shower me with eternal torture and damnation. Your God wants to kill and torture me for all eternity.

The fact that you exist is the greatest gift God has given you! He does NOT want to kill and torture you for all eternity - instead, He wants to give you a gigantic hug and love you for all eternity. Who hasn't sinned? I can boldly tell you, I STILL sin! It's not the level, or amount, or severity of the sin, it's about whether you are willing to return to His arms. If you truly are, He will always, always be there for you.

Believe me, dear Doom, when I say that I cannot move on for one day without His presence.

The Bible quotes TWO distinct characteristics of God.

1. He is loving.
2. He is just.

2nd demandment

Ex 20:4-6 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

That shows that god is unjust. If someone doesn't like that god, then god will punish him, his children, his grandchildren and even possibly great-grandchildren. Utterly unjust.

Well you know it doesn't have to be that way doomduckistan? Atheism is really a faith, a faith that there is no God,
Then baldness is the faith that there is no hair.

You're truly stupid.

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Then baldness is the faith that there is no hair.

Baldness is a fact, it can be seen and proved, not faith.

The fact that you exist is the greatest gift God has given you!
Massive question begging.

He does NOT want to kill and torture you for all eternity
Then he shouldn't have created that place.

- instead, He wants to give you a gigantic hug and love you for all eternity. Who hasn't sinned?
I have never sinned. Sin is a myth.

Believe me, dear Doom, when I say that I cannot move on for one day without His presence.
How terribly sad your life is.

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Faith: belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary

Baldness is a fact, it can be seen and proved, not faith.
And atheism is not a faith.

Faith: belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary

I'm going to use your own definition here, you have a belief that there is no God without any evidence saying so. So Atheism is a faith.

I'm going to use your own definition here, you have a belief that there is no God without any evidence saying so.
Except that the evidence is that there is no evidence of god where the evidence is to be expected.

Therefore, atheism is not a faith.

QED

Don't even try to act intelligent. It won't work. I know you're not.

God creates me, Kyle.

There's a bible verse out there that says we're all made in the womb, it's been used against abortion since hangers were invented. I dunno the exact verse, but I'm sure someone knows it.

God makes me. God knows the future. God knows, in the future, I would leave chrstianity and that it would fill me with disgust. Then I die and burn in hell.

Therefore, God made me to burn in hell?

All he was, was a man walking around, speaking of peace, and giving good advice on how to conduct yourself, wich on those days..people needed.

Thats it.

See :
"The Gospel of Thomas."

I agree... and even as an Atheist, I would never discount the incredible contribution that Jesus made to the world - not the Church, but Jesus Christ. This is a man who promoted a tolerance in the face of an intolerant society... and offering the suggestion to Turn the other Cheek at a time where minor quarrels were often blown way out of proportion, and legal frameworks - punishment and contract enforcement were the mainstay of the day. (Both Hebraic law, and Roman Law - generally whichever worked to one's best advantage.)

He was the first to teach a form of Social Contract (perhaps it isn't technically a social contract - but it is the engendering of an individualized social contract) - referred to as the Golden Rule... a simple idea to us, but a revolutionary one at the time.

Treat others as you would like to be treated, and society will be a great place to live. This is a ideal that has been adopted by Libertarian and Capitalist philosophies, as well as socialist and even Marxist ones...

These ideas were enormously influential on the evolution of political and social - While I do not accept any divinity, which is a totally different discussion, it would be doing him a great disservice to not acknowledge his greatness as a philosopher and political activist.

All he was, was a man walking around, speaking of peace, and giving good advice on how to conduct yourself, wich on those days..people needed.

Thats it.

See :
"The Gospel of Thomas."

On a related topic - regarding the Parable of the Fishes... I always liked the idea that has occasionally been suggested, that Jesus didn't make a few fishes and loaves of bread feed a huge gathering through divine power, but rather through setting a great example, and teaching both compassion to our fellow men, and that we will all be better off if we work together for our collective good.

The suggestion is that by offering his own to the pot, that the others did likewise with what little they had, and the result was a feast for all.

For a population that was constantly hungry, and families felt that they must hoard their food for themselves under that oppression of limited resources FAR GREATER miracle that he could so influence these people to work against their inbedded search for self-interest, to work for the betterment of the community at large - and in so doing, creating a better situation for all... themselves included.

In my mind, this is a far more difficult thing than would be using some super powers past down by an almighty... in which case it becomes more of a magic trick. Changing human attitudes is a far more difficult thing than using inherited divine abilities.

I am not saying that this is necessarily the case... but were it so, both Christians and Atheists alike should recognize his greatness as both a spiritual leader, and as a revolutionary thinker. He certainly would have performed a miracle... one far greater in my mind than the one commonly believed.

And this coming from me... an Atheist... go figure LOL!

It was his followers that re-wrote what he had said, and made him into a divine figure.

See :
"The Gospel of Thomas."

Another comment from this humble atheist LOL!

In my reading of the bible, I couldn't find anywhere saying that Jesus claimed to be the literal son of god, but rather that he was A son of God... All Jews believed similar ideas...

And from a social standpoint, this is a great foundation for his philophies at large - that we are all in this together, that we are ALL children of God - yes... even the Gentiles... and that we should work together to our betterment.

If God is vengeful, and humans are blood-thirsty individuals, then - to me - Jesus is a vengeful blood-thirsty human, just like the rest of us.

He died to cleanse us of our sins and cleansed His and God's sins in the process.

This by no means is an attempt to derail the identity/character/integrity of God/Jesus... I may be incoherent right now, I'm quite tired right now.

Except that the evidence is that there is no evidence of god where the evidence is to be expected.

Therefore, atheism is not a faith.

QED

Don't even try to act intelligent. It won't work. I know you're not.

Dodge and weave, then start calling your opponent in a debate stupid, racist, or greedy, take your pick, and you have the basic strategy of any liberal. You learn well. You're just mad I caught you contradicting yourself.

Except that the evidence is that there is no evidence of god where the evidence is to be expected.

Therefore, atheism is not a faith.

QED

Don't even try to act intelligent. It won't work. I know you're not.
Dodge and weave, then start calling your opponent in a debate stupid, racist, or greedy, take your pick, and you have the basic strategy of any liberal.
I'm no liberal.

Why do you think that atheism = "liberalism" (whatever that's supposed to mean)?

You learn well. You're just mad I caught you contradicting yourself.
Except that you didn't.

Don't try to act intelligent; you're not.

If you can believe something when you do not have proof, then you have faith.

An atheist has no proof that God does not exist except that there is no evidence to show there is a God. Someone with faith has no proof that God does exist except that there is no evidence to show that there isn't a God.

We have no understanding of how the world was truly created, or if there is someone who watches us in the background (God for believers... Big Brother for atheists.). All we have is faith.

I never called you a liberal BAAWA, I just said that you learn well from the liberal school of debate.

Jesus rocks, bro. So does George W. Bush...seriously! ;)

I never called you a liberal BAAWA, I just said that you learn well from the liberal school of debate.
And you think that "conservatives" never do that? Puh-leaze.

Get crucial.

Dodge and weave, then start calling your opponent in a debate stupid, racist, or greedy, take your pick, and you have the basic strategy of any liberal. You learn well. You're just mad I caught you contradicting yourself.Dodge and weave? You've got some front considering you still haven't attempted to tackle the problem of evil.

Hah, and here I was thinking that Atheism is a scientific principle based on the findings of people who looked for past biblical action and found non. To think is was a complex beleif system, guess I'll have to refute my actions and pray to that big idolised building, or "Church".

Religion never has, never will make sence, and the headache you get from ateppting to understand the conflicting messages is called "Faith".

There seems to be some misunderstanding about Jesus...

Yeah, some people think he was the son of god or something? Wierd...

Funny... this was a fun and interesting thread until it became a 3rd grade name calling forum.

While my position is very clear - I am an atheist... I have always felt that debate is healthy... and beyond that, can be... enlightening.

While noone is likely to change their stance from Christian to Atheist, or visa versa, the exchange of ideas can help each side understand the other better. Each side has points to be made, and in the end, it IS possible to find that your opinion has become more sophisticated by exploring the others' opinions. Reverting to polarized, emotional character attacks merely closes off communication instead of opening it up.

I don't see that calling one another stupid or unintelligent in any way either makes us feel that you are, yourself, intelligent, and neither does it add to the discussion.

Lets get back to the topic, shall we?

There's a bible verse out there that says we're all made in the womb, it's been used against abortion since hangers were invented. I dunno the exact verse, but I'm sure someone knows it.
That verse (actually verses) would be found in Psalm 139, a psalm of David. I think the verses you would be referring to would be 13-16
1
O LORD, You have searched me and known me.
2
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
3
You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
4
Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O LORD, You know it all.
5
You have enclosed me behind and before,
And laid Your hand upon me.
6
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is too high, I cannot attain to it.
7
Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8
If I ascend to heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.
9
If I take the wings of the dawn,
If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea,
10
Even there Your hand will lead me,
And Your right hand will lay hold of me.
11
If I say, "Surely the darkness will overwhelm me,
And the light around me will be night,"
12
Even the darkness is not dark to You,
And the night is as bright as the day.
Darkness and light are alike to You.
13
For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother's womb.
14
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
17
How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18
If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand.
When I awake, I am still with You.
19
O that You would slay the wicked, O God;
Depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed.
20
For they speak against You wickedly,
And Your enemies take Your name in vain.
21
Do I not hate those who hate You, O LORD?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22
I hate them with the utmost hatred;
They have become my enemies.
23
Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me and know my anxious thoughts;
24
And see if there be any hurtful way in me,
And lead me in the everlasting way.

Dodge and weave? You've got some front considering you still haven't attempted to tackle the problem of evil.
I have tackled this issue with a quote from C.S. Lewis that I agree with, maybe you didn't catch it before so I'll repost that quote again...You can find the original posting of this quote on page two of this very thread.

"If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata--of creatures that worked like machines--would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free."

From Mere Christianity

God Is Not Real.


(My Opinion)

But if God is all-powerful, he could make us happy without choice.

Right?

Now who's putting limitations on him?






And then there's that whole "hell" mess that turned me away from the religion to begin with...

But if God is all-powerful, he could make us happy without choice.

Maybe I need to make that quote from C.S. Lewis smaller, here goes,

"A world of automata--of creatures that worked like machines--would hardly be worth creating. THE HAPPINESS GOD DESIGNS FOR HIS HIGHER CREATURES IS THE HAPPINESS OF BEING FREELY, VOLUNTARILY UNITED TO HIM AND TO EACH OTHER in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free."

The capitalization is my own, not the original writing of Lewis.

And then there's that whole "hell" mess that turned me away from the religion to begin with...
Hell was never designed as a place for us to go, it was designed as a place for the fallen angels after their failed rebellion. It was only after the first sin, and sin entered into the human race corrupting all things that hell became a place for us as humans to go to. God desires that none should perish but that all would have eternal life through His Son.

Maybe I need to make that quote from C.S. Lewis smaller, here goes,

"A world of automata--of creatures that worked like machines--would hardly be worth creating.
But that is precisely what your god created.

1. God is omnipotent (I doubt that you'd deny that)
2. God is omniscient (ditto)
3. God knew everything either before or coeval with creating everything (from 1 & 2)
4. Thus, we have no free will, since everything that was going to happen was known to god and was put into actuality with the creation (causal determinism).

Hell was never designed as a place for us to go, it was designed as a place for the fallen angels after their failed rebellion. It was only after the first sin, and sin entered into the human race corrupting all things that hell became a place for us as humans to go to. God desires that none should perish but that all would have eternal life through His Son.
Then god shouldn't have created evil and sin, and should have given Adam and Eve a moral code in the first place (Gen 3:22 proves that he didn't).

Then god shouldn't have created evil and sin, God cannot create evil or sin, God is perfect, righteous, and holy, therefore God cannot be evil or create it. A good definition of sin would be rebellion against God, so how could God rebel against himself, therefore God cannot create sin or sin against himself.



...and should have given Adam and Eve a moral code in the first place
Genesis 3:3 " 'but from the furit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' "

It is important to note that God meant an immediate spiritual death and because of the decay that sin causes a physical death would follow. After Adam and Eve ate from the fruit they separated themselves from God and became aware of their nakedness. Adam and Eve knew that it was wrong to eat of the fruit and yet they did it anyway.
Then you ask, why did God place that tree in the garden? It was because He wanted Adam and Eve to have the choice to either follow Him or reject Him, the same choice that we all have today.

God cannot create evil or sin, God is perfect, righteous, and holy, therefore God cannot be evil or create it. A good definition of sin would be rebellion against God, so how could God rebel against himself, therefore God cannot create sin or sin against himself.

You are being irrational. You point out how God is perfect etc. The question was about evil, not about can God be sinful.

However the point remains, why did God create something capable of rebelling against him. that is, creating an inperfect being. I assume, that because God is perfect, it was deliberate on his part.

Please don't take offense by this but please read back a couple more posts than just one or two because I already adressed the issue of evil, I was refuting a point made by BAAWA when he claimed that God had created evil and sin. I made the point that God cannot create evil and sin.

However the point remains, why did God create something capable of rebelling against him.

I'll keep quoting C.S. Lewis until it gets through to you people,

"Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata--of creatures that worked like machines--would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other..."

Then god shouldn't have created evil and sin,
God cannot create evil or sin,
Then explain Is 45:7.

"Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things."

I await your whine.

God is perfect, righteous, and holy, therefore God cannot be evil or create it.
Then you don't know your bible.

A good definition of sin would be rebellion against God, so how could God rebel against himself, therefore God cannot create sin or sin against himself.
God created everything, right?


...and should have given Adam and Eve a moral code in the first place

Genesis 3:3 " 'but from the furit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' "

Gen 3:22
And Jehovah God said, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' --

Meaning: Adam and Eve were NOT created with a moral code. They had to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to gain that.

It is important to note that God meant an immediate spiritual death
No, that's not what the text says. You're adding to it, which jesus said NOT to do. SINNER!

Adam and Eve knew that it was wrong to eat of the fruit and yet they did it anyway.
How could they know before they ate it? Gen 3:22 is quite clear that they didn't know what morality was until they ate the fruit.

Then you ask, why did God place that tree in the garden? It was because He wanted Adam and Eve to have the choice to either follow Him or reject Him, the same choice that we all have today.
Freewill and your god are incompatible.

"If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata--of creatures that worked like machines--would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free."
Firstly, how does that explain natural disasters, kids dying of malnutrition before their 5th birthday's etc?

Secondly, why, when he's omniscient, did God create Satan in the first place?

Thirdly, why did God not create us to freely do the right thing all the time.

Fourthly, I don't see how "obey me freely or burn in hell" can be considered free will. If I hold a gun to someone's head, have they freely chosen to hand over their wallet?

"A world of automata--of creatures that worked like machines--would hardly be worth creating. THE HAPPINESS GOD DESIGNS FOR HIS HIGHER CREATURES IS THE HAPPINESS OF BEING FREELY, VOLUNTARILY UNITED TO HIM AND TO EACH OTHER in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

And I'm saying, if God is all powerful, he could make us JUST as happy without the free will.


And guess what? Hell still exists. I don't care WHAT it was originally there for, it's still there.

And if God REALLLLLY wanted us all to go to heaven, it would happen. That's omnipotence for you.

Not Another One Of These God Damn Threads!!!! These Are Getting Really Old And Really Annoying!!! Stop With This Annoying Crap!!!

I'm Sure People Will Pay A Lot Of Attention To What You Are Saying Because You Talk In Caps!!!!! You Also Use An Obscene Amount Of Exclamation Points!!!!!

Im Just Frusturated From Seeing So Many Of These!!!

George Carlin on god.

I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy
nailed to two pieces of wood.

We created god in our own image and likeness!

I credit that eight years of grammar school with nourishing me in a
direction where I could trust myself and trust my instincts. They
gave me the tools to reject my faith. They taught me to question and
think for myself and to believe in my instincts to such an extent
that I just said, 'This is a wonderful fairy tale they have going
here, but it's not for me.'

If churches want to play the game of politics, let them pay admission
like everyone else

This is a lttle prayer dedicated to the separation of church and
state. I guess if they are going to force those kids to pray in
schools they might as well have a nice prayer like this: Our Father
who art in heaven, and to the republic for which it stands, thy
kingdom come, one nation indivisible as in heaven, give us this day
as we forgive those who so proudly we hail. Crown thy good into
temptation but deliver us from the twilight's last gleaming. Amen and
Awomen.

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My
idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own,
so both of them together is certain death.

Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky
who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want
you to do or else you'll to to a burning place with a lake of fire
until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money!
He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!

I've begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all,
unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It's there
for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all
the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one
asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring
pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I
offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all
answered at about the same 50-percent rate.

A man came up to me on the street and said I used to be messed up out
of my mind on drugs but now I'm messed up out of my mind on Jeeesus
Chriiist.

I have as much authority as the pope, I just don't have as many
people who believe it.

Instead of school busing and prayer in schools, which are both
controversial, why not a joint solution? Prayer in buses. Just drive
these kids around all day and let them pray their fuckn' empty little
heads off.

When it comes to BULLSHIT...BIG-TIME, MAJOR LEAGUE BULLSHIT... you
have to stand IN AWE, IN AWE of the all time champion of false
promises and exaggerated claims, religion.

Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think
about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an
INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do,
every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten
special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of
these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and
burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer
and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end
of time...but he loves you.

I want you to know, when it comes to believing in god- I really
tried. I really really tried. I tried to believe that there is a god
who created each one of us in his own image and likeness, loves us
very much and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe
that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look
around, the more you realize...something is FUCKED-UP. Something is
WRONG here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty,
torture, crime, corruption and the Ice Capades. Something is
definitely wrong. This is NOT good work. If this is the best god can
do, I am NOT impressed. Results like these do not belong on the
resume of a supreme being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from
an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in
any decently run universe, this guy would have been out on his all-
powerful-ass a long time ago.

Trillions and trillions of prayers every day asking and begging and
pleading for favors. 'Do this' 'Gimme that' 'I want a new car' 'I
want a better job'. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday.
And I say fine, pray for anything you want. Pray for anything. But...
what about the divine plan? Remember that? The divine plan. Long time
ago god made a divine plan. Gave it a lot of thought. Decided it was
a good plan. Put it into practice. And for billion and billions of
years the divine plan has been doing just fine. Now you come along
and pray for something. Well, suppose the thing you want isn't in
god's divine plan. What do you want him to do? Change his plan? Just
for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a divine plan.
What's the use of being god if every run-down schmuck with a two
dollar prayer book can come along and fuck up your plan? And here's
something else, another problem you might have; suppose your prayers
aren't answered. What do you say? 'Well it's god's will. God's will
be done.' Fine, but if it gods will and he's going to do whatever he
wants to anyway; why the fuck bother praying in the first place?
Seems like a big waste of time to me. Couldn't you just skip the
praying part and get right to his will?

You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Joe Pesci. Two reasons; first of
all, I think he's a good actor. Ok. To me, that counts. Second; he
looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck
around. Doesn't fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a
couple of things that god was having trouble with. For years I asked
god to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog. Joe
Pesci straightened that cock-sucker out with one visit.

I noticed that of all the prayers I used to offer to god, and all the
prayers that I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answer at about the
same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want. Half the time I
don't. Same as god 50/50. Same as the four leaf clover, the horse
shoe, the rabbit's foot, and the wishing well. Same as the mojo man.
Same as the voodoo lady who tells your fortune by squeezing the
goat's testicles. It's all the same; 50/50. So just pick your
superstitions, sit back, make a wish and enjoy yourself. And for
those of you that look to the Bible for it's literary qualities and
moral lessons; I got a couple other stories I might like to recommend
for you. You might enjoy The Three Little Pigs. That's a good one. It
has a nice happy ending. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood.
Although it does have that one x-rated part where the Big-Bad-Wolf
actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way.
And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from
Humpty Dumpty. The part I liked best: ...and all the king's horses,
and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty together again. That's
because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no god. None. Not
one. Never was. No god.

Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes you feel
better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes.

Also, to ask one of Socrates' questions: Is being loved by the gods which makes a thing holy, or it loved by the gods because that thing is holy? Can be rendered here as "why does God brutally punish people who sin?". If their sin is do do something that is against his will, something of which God disapproves (eg: murder), then why would God kill them in turn? If he hate killing, and killing is against his will, then how can he punish a murderer by death? I know that God is above the rules he lays down for us, but why are the rules in place if he will break them? What purpose do they serve?

When Cain killed Abel, he thought that he understood God. But killing was God's gift and his gift alone. Thus he punished Cain into Damnation.

Haha that was funny. :p :mp5: :sniper:

4. Thus, we have no free will, since everything that was going to happen was known to god and was put into actuality with the creation (causal determinism).


The idea of no free will makes no sense because with no fee will, some people are damned to hell without having any choice in it.
No matter what they do they will be sinners and cause suffering and eventually go to hell.
This also makes no sense becuase why would God want those who do not sin to suffer becuase of those who do sin.
Answer me that.

I'll keep quoting C.S. Lewis until it gets through to you people,

I'll keep posting my 4-step refutation of Lewis/Free will until you get it through your head.

1. God is omniscient
2. God created everything
3. God either knew everything prior to or coeval with creating everything
4. Everything that happens was put into action via god's creating it from his knowledge (causal determinism), which means that there is no such thing as free will.

god there is no god.




Get over it,/ that and move on.


if you want a god, or something that created you--- its the earth that your in right now!

Duh god is a fairy tale that many like to follow for some idiotic faith.

The idea of no free will makes no sense because with no fee will, some people are damned to hell without having any choice in it.
No matter what they do they will be sinners and cause suffering and eventually go to hell.
This also makes no sense becuase why would God want those who do not sin to suffer becuase of those who do sin.
Answer me that.

Actually, you're supposed to answer US that. Or at least, the christians are supposed to answer us that :p

He was not an Arab! He was a Nazereth, a sect of the Jews.

Minor point: - He was an Essenic Jew from Nazareth. Nazareth is a town about 16 miles west of the Sea of Galillee in what is now Lebanon.

The Jewish sect that he was a member of was the Essenes.

Minor point: - He was an Essenic Jew from Nazareth. Nazareth is a town about 16 miles west of the Sea of Galillee in what is now Lebanon.
Minor point: Nazareth did not exist as a real village or settlement until ~150CE

Minor point: Nazareth did not exist as a real village or settlement until ~150CE

Cite?

You may be correct, but from what I understood, Nazareth was founded in about 100BC by Babylonian exiles, and probably contained about 120-150 people at the time of the birth of Jesus, and there is some archelogical evidence for this.

just a correction...anyone who compares God in the New Testament to God in the Old cannot do so, because after Jesus came a new covenant was made throwing out every single thign that was said in the Old testament. even God's promises to Abraham ar ecaput. do not even read the Old Testament ubnless you want a history lesson or a way to see what happens to the unfaithful. The New Testament is really the only important part of the Bible as it teaches people how to really live and uses Jesus' teachings to showcase how we should live. plus, the adam and eve story is jsut really non-sense...its jsut tryign to show that God started life on this palent.

Misunderstanding about Jesus? You mean to say that NOBODY knows that Jesus can fly? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? Were you also unaware that if you capture Jesus and eat him (in pie form of course) you can obtain his flying powers?

it doesnt matter if jesus is from Nazareth and was jew, because everyone in that area (middle east) was an arab, except persians but there still arabs they just dont like to say it

and viper we are all here now
http://s4.invisionfree.com/Fools_Paradise/index.php?

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/king-missle-jesus-was-way-cool-lyrics.html

it doesnt matter if jesus is from Nazareth and was jew, because everyone in that area (middle east) was an arab, except persians but there still arabs they just dont like to say it

http://dictionary.reference.com

just a correction...anyone who compares God in the New Testament to God in the Old cannot do so, because after Jesus came a new covenant was made throwing out every single thign that was said in the Old testament. even God's promises to Abraham ar ecaput. do not even read the Old Testament ubnless you want a history lesson or a way to see what happens to the unfaithful. The New Testament is really the only important part of the Bible as it teaches people how to really live and uses Jesus' teachings to showcase how we should live. plus, the adam and eve story is jsut really non-sense...its jsut tryign to show that God started life on this palent.

If the OT has no importance, then why does it continue to be included in Christian Bibles? Why not drop it and only have the NT?

I suspect your NT-centric perspective is not shared by most Christians (although, for the record, I think it makes the most sense if one is going to argue the "New Covenant" doctrine). Indeed, as a Jew, there is a part of me that would prefer Christians to dissassociate the NT from the OT. That said, however, I recognize that, according to most mainstream Christian beliefs, both books are important, at least in theory.

You know, there's something very strange about a thread where some of the most concise defences of Christianity comes from an athiest!

That said, a few questions fired randomly at people:

Pick the 5 countries you would most like to live in. How many of them were established by Christians? How many were established by athiests? Assuming that (i) people survive after death, and (ii) people like the Salvos, St. Vinnies etc are all heading off elsewhere, what is your post-death realm going to be like?
So why blame God if is Hell is a really sucky place to be?

Secondly - take Jesus' statment 'I am the Truth'. Assume two individuals, niether of whom believes in Christianity.One cheerfully quotes creeds, prayers and sermons etc because 'that's what we do' - the other refuses to tell a lie. Who is worshipping the truth?

Thirdly - the reason that Christianity takes such a panning in the media etc is that Christians are one of the few groups who tolerate this. Try saying the thigs which have been said about Jesus, only in the Middle East about Muhammad; or in China about their current athiestic icons. Forcing Christians to take a long hard look at our beliefs is a good thing (and my thanks to the non-Christians who are attempting to do this). Using abuse to drive Christianity underground is a good way of destroying a major force which encourages open discussions.

Finally - any 'argument' with the words 'omnicient' and 'omnipotent' in it is doomed to fail. We don't don't have free will because God knows what we're doing? No, because he's omnipotent - he can give us Free Will!
And you can run back and forth and you will get nowhere - because no one here has ever experienced being either omnipotent nor omnicient so none of us can truly understand the concepts involved. This is not a theological problem, it is a philosophical problem.
"we now return you to your regularly scheduled FlameWar!"

To the creator of this thread and any other Christians who are devout enough in their faith to listen to people critiscizing it I ask you to read these.
Blood Sacrifice in the Bible (http://www.freewebs.com/see_the_truth/Human%20Sacrifice%20and%20the%20Bible.html)
Sins of the Nazarene (http://www.freewebs.com/see_the_truth/sinning%5Fnazarene.html)
The Ten Commandments (http://www.freewebs.com/see_the_truth/TenCommandments.html)

I believe God exists. But he isn't omnipotent and didn't do anything that he says he did, except for order people to commit murder.

A question for those who argue that omniscience goes against free will, I predict that people will reply to this post- does that mean I have power over them?

Militaristic atheists who say 'God didn't do absolute everything according to my rules, therefore he's not omnipotent and so doesn't exist' are sort of missing the point: If the world was perfect and ran on an unerring track, it'd be pretty fucking boring and no-one would get anything from it.

I consider myself an infidel and see no justification for belief for or against God: If he's reasonable, being nice to people and such will be enough. If he's going to send me away somewhere else just for not spinning the wheel, let him: I don't want to spend eternity with someone that shallow.

Hey dont be hateing jesus or god cuz if u say u hate them i might have to report u for something making fun of someones religon i dont want this thread turning into a hate thread or i may have to kill u all. :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Hey dont be hateing jesus or god cuz if u say u hate them i might have to report u for something making fun of someones religon i dont want this thread turning into a hate thread or i may have to kill u all. :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

If you don't have AIDS I am offended :( If you do *hugs*

Although this is not my opinion I feel it might be helpful to relate it here.

It is clear in the Bible that it is not the same God who first waxes wroth and then forgives all who love him, but that's not to say it's a different entity altogether.
Jesus can be seen more than simply a helpful messenger for mankind, he is also the first time that God truly experiences what it is like to be mortal. There is a large portion of Jesus's life missed out in the Bible and it is very likely that in that time he succumbed to various temptations of the flesh before finally managing to overcome them. In the last 3 years of his life Jesus was empowered with the spirit of God and yet he was still human. His whole existance on Earth was nothing more than that of a human because while he at times channelled God's power, he did not wield it. He was both a messenger and experiment that allowed God to feel what his creations feel. Thus, after finding out that mortal life was not as simple as it at first appeared and now truly knowing the suffereing he could inflict, God became more forgiving and wasn't so keen on the smiting anymore.

No, since I am an atheist he will shower me with eternal torture and damnation. Your God wants to kill and torture me for all eternity.


If you don't believe in Him, then why are you so frightened and angered by Him?

Also, it is part of doctrine that there are non-Christians known only to God who know nothing of him but will be saved by their good works and moral lives...

Not Another One Of These God Damn Threads!!!! These Are Getting Really Old And Really Annoying!!! Stop With This Annoying Crap!!!


Simple solution, since you chose not to make a civil or intelligent contribution: when you see these threads, don't read them and don't reply to them.

Hey, that's the essence of free will. Poenia chose freely to come in here and make the remark above, when s/he could simply have skipped this thread and chosen another. Obviously, the subject is upsetting for him/her: s/he chose to be upset.

My $.02

god there is no god.




Get over it,/ that and move on.


if you want a god, or something that created you--- its the earth that your in right now!

Duh god is a fairy tale that many like to follow for some idiotic faith.

Like punctuation, spelling and grammar?

If you don't believe in Him, then why are you so frightened and angered by Him?
I doubt that he is.

Also, it is part of doctrine that there are non-Christians known only to God who know nothing of him but will be saved by their good works and moral lives...
Directly contradicts Jn 3:16

If you don't believe in Him, then why are you so frightened and angered by Him?

Also, it is part of doctrine that there are non-Christians known only to God who know nothing of him but will be saved by their good works and moral lives...


I'M not, but I know several people who follow the religion, and are deathly afraid of hell. It's sheer idiocy, and it's rather sad.


And if God loves me so much, why is he damning me? Sounds rather childish to me.



You know, I'm just glad the "God's plan" theroy hasn't come up yet. THAT one's funny.

i feel that i should just drop in and post this...
i am a Christian, i am not ashamed, personally i do not like to reply to these threads, to much Relegion bashing and "God doesnt exist" stuff. i belive God does exist, and is who He says He is, if other people do not belive in God, it is thier choice. People can try to convince them that God does exist, and it is thier choice if they belive it or not, but they have heard what Christians and non-Christians have to say, it is their choice to belive if God does or does not exist.

Also, it is part of doctrine that there are non-Christians known only to God who know nothing of him but will be saved by their good works and moral lives...

Directly contradicts Jn 3:16

So... Romans 2:11-16 directly contradicts John 3:16?

Which book should we throw out?

i feel that i should just drop in and post this...
i am a Christian, i am not ashamed, personally i do not like to reply to these threads, to much Relegion bashing and "God doesnt exist" stuff. i belive God does exist, and is who He says He is, if other people do not belive in God, it is thier choice. People can try to convince them that God does exist, and it is thier choice if they belive it or not, but they have heard what Christians and non-Christians have to say, it is their choice to belive if God does or does not exist.

Oh I believe in God. A god, at least. But he's not too into the fire and brimstone thing ;)

I find it hard to believe Berkylvania that you are a Christian and yet you do not understand the concept of judgement of sin. Us humans have defiled this earth with our sin and evil, Satan defiled heaven by committing the first sin by declaring himself greater than God. That is why you read at the end of Revelation of the destruction of this present earth and heaven, and the creation of a new earth and heaven. As I said before God abhors evil and sin, it must be punished, but before he punishes us he gives us a way out, that is who Jesus is. The cross is the bridge over the chasm that seperates us from God.


Fairy story. The things you say here aren't even supported by the texts you claim as your inspiration. If you read Job, Satan is quite clearly a subject to God - and is acting at his lords bidding. If you have any actual bible education, you know that HaSatan is the adversary of man, not of god - and is an aeropagus office, not the name of an individual. Even if revelation were a true prophecy of things yet-to-come, and there is abundant evidence it isn't, that still fails to further your case of Satan as first sinner...

Just show me the verse where it says "Satan declared himself greater than god". Don't confuse church fairytales with scripture.


But you say, why does God allow evil? Thats a good question, the only answer I have is from C.S. Lewis...



Then, once again, you really need to return to scripture...

Judges 9:23 "Then GOD sent an EVIL spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem."

1Samuel 16:15 "...Behold now, an EVIL spirit from GOD troubleth thee."

1Kings 9:9 "...therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this EVIL."

2Chronicles 7:22 "...laid hold on other gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath he brought all this EVIL upon them."

Jeremiah 19:3 "Behold, I will bring EVIL upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle."


Since I consider this place to be a virtual city, I'm officially walking away from this debate and shaking the dust off my feet. I will sincerely pray for all of you, I encourage you all to read the gospels, read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and read More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell.

You started the debate, but you have no evidence, aside from a couple of quotes from a book you appear not to have studied, and a few more passages from a pamphlet (and not even a very good one). No wonder you walk away.

Feel free not to pray for me, since I fear that (if there were a god), your supplications would be the equivalent of blasphemy.

just a correction...anyone who compares God in the New Testament to God in the Old cannot do so, because after Jesus came a new covenant was made throwing out every single thign that was said in the Old testament. even God's promises to Abraham ar ecaput. do not even read the Old Testament ubnless you want a history lesson or a way to see what happens to the unfaithful. The New Testament is really the only important part of the Bible as it teaches people how to really live and uses Jesus' teachings to showcase how we should live. plus, the adam and eve story is jsut really non-sense...its jsut tryign to show that God started life on this palent.

Now, there is a refreshing change of direction... the Old Testament is rubbish, you say... everything in it was outdated with the coming of the New Testament. The only important part is the New Testament.

Thank you - I like that.

Of course, without the sanctification of the Old Testament, you have to admit that Jesus is not Messiah... and if he isn't messiah, he's not the anointed... and if he's not anointed, he's not the "christos"... so he isn't Christ.

So - there are no christians.

And no Calvary sacrifice... and no resurrection....

Nicely done.

just a correction...anyone who compares God in the New Testament to God in the Old cannot do so, because after Jesus came a new covenant was made throwing out every single thign that was said in the Old testament. even God's promises to Abraham ar ecaput. do not even read the Old Testament ubnless you want a history lesson or a way to see what happens to the unfaithful. The New Testament is really the only important part of the Bible as it teaches people how to really live and uses Jesus' teachings to showcase how we should live. plus, the adam and eve story is jsut really non-sense...its jsut tryign to show that God started life on this palent.

You really should read the NT...

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

- Matthew 5:16-17, KJV

God cannot create evil or sin, God is perfect, righteous, and holy, therefore God cannot be evil or create it. A good definition of sin would be rebellion against God, so how could God rebel against himself, therefore God cannot create sin or sin against himself.


Already proved the 'evil' bit untrue...

A rebellion against god would be questioning him, or saying that he had done wrong:

Genesis 6:6 "And it REPENTED the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

He questions his own actions... he admits he did wrong. So - by your definition of 'rebellion', he has sinned against himself.

Also - on the subject of repepntance (in the case of god, this would equate to sin), and the origins of evil (which you have argued cannot be created by god):

Exodus 32:14 "And the LORD REPENTED of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."



Genesis 3:3 " 'but from the furit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' "

It is important to note that God meant an immediate spiritual death and because of the decay that sin causes a physical death would follow. After Adam and Eve ate from the fruit they separated themselves from God and became aware of their nakedness. Adam and Eve knew that it was wrong to eat of the fruit and yet they did it anyway.
Then you ask, why did God place that tree in the garden? It was because He wanted Adam and Eve to have the choice to either follow Him or reject Him, the same choice that we all have today.

More fairystories. The Hebrew makes it quite clear, "Muwth" that a physical death is to be the result... "Muwth" means to 'die, kill, or have one executed'. There is no room in the text for 'spiritualistic' interpretation.

Also - they obviously had no knowledge of "good and evil" until after they ate from the tree of "good and evil", so how would they know it was wrong? Even if god told them so, they wouldn't have understood that rebellion was wrong, since they had no awareness of 'wrong'.

Stop making stuff up. If you can't support it from the text (and, since there is no other evidence of the biblical god), you have no support.

Already proved the 'evil' bit untrue...

A rebellion against god would be questioning him, or saying that he had done wrong:

Genesis 6:6 "And it REPENTED the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

He questions his own actions... he admits he did wrong. So - by your definition of 'rebellion', he has sinned against himself.

Also - on the subject of repepntance (in the case of god, this would equate to sin), and the origins of evil (which you have argued cannot be created by god):

Exodus 32:14 "And the LORD REPENTED of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."




More fairystories. The Hebrew makes it quite clear, "Muwth" that a physical death is to be the result... "Muwth" means to 'die, kill, or have one executed'. There is no room in the text for 'spiritualistic' interpretation.

Also - they obviously had no knowledge of "good and evil" until after they ate from the tree of "good and evil", so how would they know it was wrong? Even if god told them so, they wouldn't have understood that rebellion was wrong, since they had no awareness of 'wrong'.

Stop making stuff up. If you can't support it from the text (and, since there is no other evidence of the biblical god), you have no support.

One may regret without having sinned. One may "repent of one's sins" or "repent of one's marriage" of "repent of having not worn a jacket". One may also question without rebellion... just look at Thomas.

And "a day to God is as a thousand years", the same passage used to open a door between science and Genesis, applies to Adam's death. Of course you don't believe that the world was made in six "days", so why are you even bothering to poke holes in Adam's age at death? If you will overlook the one, you should overlook the other, and if not...

why are you here? Just to hijack the thread?

Oh and do read my sig, True Believer.

once I regretted wearing a jacket, I set off in the morning, it seemed quite a chilly day, but the sun came out soon after and I was too hot in my big jacket. Unfortunately, the jacket was too heavy for me too carry, so I suffered with the jacket on and eventually became sweaty and smelly and people laughed at me.

true story from my own personal bible, written by me

the moral of this story is: believe in what you want, it doesn't bother me, as long as your happy.

Ah Tasty Toast! you make an excellent jest! hahahahaha! Well done w/ the wit and savage sarcasim!

One may regret without having sinned. One may "repent of one's sins" or "repent of one's marriage" of "repent of having not worn a jacket". One may also question without rebellion... just look at Thomas.

And "a day to God is as a thousand years", the same passage used to open a door between science and Genesis, applies to Adam's death. Of course you don't believe that the world was made in six "days", so why are you even bothering to poke holes in Adam's age at death? If you will overlook the one, you should overlook the other, and if not...

why are you here? Just to hijack the thread?

Oh and do read my sig, True Believer.

I based my choice of texts on 'unashamed christians' assertion that god was incapable of sin, and that sin was a rebellion against god. To say that god's work was wrong, that he had been mistaken, would question his fallibility, and imply that god was capable of making mistakes (which kind of goes against omniscience, anyway). By that token, having to admit he was wrong would be the equivalent of god rebelling against himself - he would be opposing god's plan, by creating a new plan.

I appreciate the 'day to a thousand years' concept (although I question the Genesis "day" for wholly other reasons. The thing is, there is no space in the scripture for any reason to believe that god did not intend the death to be instantaneous... in fact, the very wording makes it sound just like that, "you eat, you die". So - the question of days, or thousands of years is irrelevent.
Especially in Hebrew, it is very clear that it is a very physical death, and there seems no clause to imply a delay.

As I said, I don't 'overlook' the one, and I see no evidence for the other, scriptural or otherwise.

I'm not sure how I'm 'hijacking the thread' by replying directly to posts on it...
or is Jesus now a members-only club, and bible discussion only for a select few?

Please tell me what your sig says - I have them switched off due to an old computer and a 56k modem.

True Believer?

I based my choice of texts on 'unashamed christians' assertion that god was incapable of sin, and that sin was a rebellion against god. To say that god's work was wrong, that he had been mistaken, would question his fallibility, and imply that god was capable of making mistakes (which kind of goes against omniscience, anyway). By that token, having to admit he was wrong would be the equivalent of god rebelling against himself - he would be opposing god's plan, by creating a new plan.

I appreciate the 'day to a thousand years' concept (although I question the Genesis "day" for wholly other reasons. The thing is, there is no space in the scripture for any reason to believe that god did not intend the death to be instantaneous... in fact, the very wording makes it sound just like that, "you eat, you die". So - the question of days, or thousands of years is irrelevent.
Especially in Hebrew, it is very clear that it is a very physical death, and there seems no clause to imply a delay.

As I said, I don't 'overlook' the one, and I see no evidence for the other, scriptural or otherwise.

I'm not sure how I'm 'hijacking the thread' by replying directly to posts on it...
or is Jesus now a members-only club, and bible discussion only for a select few?

Please tell me what your sig says - I have them switched off due to an old computer and a 56k modem.

True Believer?

It's also possible to regret something you've done and still not think it was wrong to do it. Such as, to feel sorry for having executed a murderer, but stand by the belief that it was right to do so. To regret having been forced to do something is possible.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

- Genesis 2:16-17, KJV

...hmm... looks like that's exactly what it says. So the day = 1000 years passage is precisely germaine.

My signature:

__________________
.
.
.
- Druthulhu
Your Only Real Choice

"If you're gonna call mine a 'fairy tale', I will keep calling yours a 'religion'."
__________________

Yes, True Believer ... or at least, you sound like a believer in the religion of Atheism. Yeah you're free to come here and call the Bible "fairy stories" all you like, but it's old, it's tired, it's been done to death in these forums, and bringing it here is threadjacking.

The bible is an account of events. And being over 2000 years old, who knows what has been changed and altered. All we can really do is try to believe what basic stories we have learned as children. Yes in the bible there are account of God punishing those who have sinned against him, but that does'nt mean we should be acusing him of wrong or calling him bloodthirsty. If he was truly bloodthirsty then he would have ended the holy war in the middle east a long time ago.

The bible is an account of events. And being over 2000 years old, who knows what has been changed and altered. All we can really do is try to believe what basic stories we have learned as children. Yes in the bible there are account of God punishing those who have sinned against him, but that does'nt mean we should be acusing him of wrong or calling him bloodthirsty. If he was truly bloodthirsty then he would have ended the holy war in the middle east a long time ago.
Not necessarily, if he really is bloodthristy maybe he's enjoying the fight over some microwave popcorn and cheetos with perhaps a bud light chaser.

Also - they obviously had no knowledge of "good and evil" until after they ate from the tree of "good and evil", so how would they know it was wrong? Even if god told them so, they wouldn't have understood that rebellion was wrong, since they had no awareness of 'wrong'.

Stop making stuff up. If you can't support it from the text (and, since there is no other evidence of the biblical god), you have no support.
First, just a reminder of my atheist beliefs... LOL!

Wrong comes in two flavours: Evil, and bad. I fully agree with you that it was NOT a sin for them to eat the apple from the tree of knowledge - it couldn't be, as they had no concept of good and evil. Thus, no moral sanctions apply.

HOWEVER, they DID know that it was WRONG (Bad) to eat from the tree of knowledge... they were TOLD as much. It was not an ethical issue - but rather one of rule of law...

When your child disobeys you, and sticks a screwdriver in the lightsocket, and gets a shock... he was WRONG to do so. He was not SINNING... and in no way was committing an evil act LOL! But he was told NOT to stick things in the socket, and disobeying that rule was both wrong, and folly. (As a child, I just couldn't seem to learn that rule LOL! I got more than my share of shocks testing to see if it would happen again!)

In that way, Adam and Eve WERE wrong. They knew the consequences, and therefore were accountable for their actions, and as such had to pay those consequences. They were NOT, however, sinners, and did not commit EVIL.

Or that's how the story goes ;)

Now, I want to make a quick point. You can talk all you want about the Bible not making sense, or even make up tales about contradictions that someone else found in it, but the simple fact is that there is no alternative. If you really want to understand God better, go to a church and speak with a minister. I will not pretend to be able to answer all of your questions. However, I can explain to you why there is no other possibility.

I apologize profusely for putting something so long on, but this is a paper I once wrote on evolution. If you do not wish to read the whole thing, I cannot blame you. However, for those who are truly interesting in the thread I would encourage you to read it.


STARTS HERE __________
There are numerous faults in the well-known theory of evolution. To do that, however, it must first be established what exactly evolution is. There are two main forms of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution includes such events as the breeding of dogs to create new types, such as Great Danes, Dalmatians, Chihuahuas, and German Shepherds. This type of evolution, changes within a species, is recognized by all people and is not going to come under question. Macroevolution, however, which results in entirely new and different species, is what this paper will discuss. “Evolution in this sense can be defined as: “The hypothesis that millions of years ago, lifeless matter, acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to minute living organisms, which have since produced all living and extinct plants and animals, including man.”(1) The first point to realize, however, is that evolution is not truly a theory, although it is billed as such. It is actually a hypothesis, or educated guess. It is based on inductive reasoning and therefore should not be considered as advanced as a theory. This paper will use the term theory, however, for the sake of avoiding minor arguments. The problems with Darwin’s theory of evolution begin with the creation of life itself, but they do not end there. Throughout the entire system there are many holes, and that is what we will be examining.
The origin of life is crucial to Darwin’s theory, but the supposed mechanism by which life was created is by no means satisfactory. According to evolutionists, the extreme conditions on earth led to the creation of the first single-celled organisms. However, any biology teacher should remember the law of biogenesis, which states, put simply, that “life comes from life.”(1) The simplest form of life known to humans is a virus, and even it is not considered to be truly alive by most. A virus consists of about 600 proteins. Each of these proteins is made of about 400 amino acids. “Eugene Guye estimated that the odds against the formation of one simple protein molecule by chance combinations of atoms of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur are 100 multiplied by itself 100 times to 1.”(1) Also, the odds of four hundred amino acids coming together exactly right at the same time “have been calculated to be 1 in 10 to the 240th power- or 10 followed by 240 zeros.”(1) The chances are about the same as those of a tornado hitting a junkyard and leaving behind a working Boeing 747. The law of philosophical necessity says that something can not come from nothing, therefore something always was. Evolutionists therefore claim that dead matter has always existed, but that idea goes against all scientific knowledge. That, however, is a whole different topic. The cell theory has three parts. First, that all life is composed of one or more cells. Second, that cells only come from other cells. Third, that the cell is the smallest form of life. This theory has been upheld by all life ever studied by man, and yet evolution blatantly requires that we ignore it. However, evolution at its core is absolutely contrary to many of the laws of science.
The first law of thermodynamics states that matter can be changed, but it is neither created nor destroyed. The second law states that although the total amount remains the same, over time some of this matter is transformed into heat energy. This heat energy can not be changed back into matter, and therefore is useless to us. Therefore the amount of energy in the universe that can be used is constantly declining. This means that everything has a tendency to become less perfect and efficient overtime. The human body, the sun, everything follows this pattern. Evolution, however, asks us to believe that over time things become more complex and sophisticated. This goes against everything real science tells us. In fact, evolution can be refuted without having to disprove one single scientific fact. However, the main holes in the theory deal with the development of the species themselves.
To start with, we will take a look at one celled creatures, or protozoa. These are the simplest life forms, yet there is still great diversity even within this group. Whereas amoebas have no definite shape, the paramecium keeps the same oval shape. Amoebas move by using the pseudopod, while the paramecium uses cilia. The amoeba surrounds and absorbs its food, while the paramecium actually has the equivalent of a mouth. According to evolution, both of these organisms must have come from the same creature, but there is no evidence of this. What is truly interesting, is how the gap from one celled to many celled, or metazoa, could have been bridged. You see, all metazoans are “made up of literally hundreds of cells.”(1) However, there are no metazoans to cross this huge gap. There are no organisms made of four cells, or eight cells, or even eighteen. It just jumps straight into the hundreds. There is only one source for the information that can prove evolution occurs, and that is the fossil record. Unfortunately, even it seems to have set itself against evolution.
One major problem that evolution still faces in the fossil record is explaining something known as the “Cambrian explosion.”(2) You see, if evolution is true, then at the bottom of the fossil record there would only be the simplest creatures. As you worked your way up, the creatures would grow more and more complex. This is not the case. In fact, at the Cambrian level you do find simple, one-celled creatures, but you also find thousands of developed creatures, which should not exist at that point in time. “The earliest known sedimentary rocks contain no fossils…in the rocks laid down in the Cambrian period a host of well-defined fossils occur in many parts of the world, not only of simple, one-celled animals, but also of a great variety of sea creatures, many of them quite as complex as anything to be found on the beach today. Fossils of no fewer thsan 5,000 different species have been found of jellyfish, corals, sea lilies and sea cucumbers, worms, numerous kinds of crustaceans, and a wide range of shellfish.”(1) It is important to realize that no fossils have been found that predate the Cambrian period. But animals aren’t the only life forms to suddenly appear.
Plants in general appear suddenly and with no preexisting form to evolve from. Darwin himself considered their origin to be “an abominable mystery,”(1) and no scientist to this day can give a good explanation for their origins. In fact, there is very little to say on this argument because there is no argument. No evolutionist has ever been able to figure out where plants came from, and quite simply it is an “insurmountable obstacle.”(2) The fossil record is lacking in another important piece of evidence.
Transition forms, if found, would prove almost absolutely that evolution does occur. However, there has never been a true transitional form found. Out of the entire fossil record, not one has ever been discovered. Without this evidence, evolution should not have become as widely accepted as it has. Strangely, it has, in some cases, managed to overcome this obstacle by proposing a ridiculous solution. Several leading evolutionists have claimed that there are no transitional forms because the species evolved by sudden leaps. In other words, one day the crocodile egg hatched a chicken, and the years later that chicken hatched a dog, and so on and so forth. As ridiculous as it is, this theory is still being taken seriously. In truth, it is most likely that evolutionists will accept anything if it provides them a way out of the corner they are backed into. What is also interesting is that many species have not changed in several million years. Creatures like sharks and crocodiles supposedly are no different today than they ever were. Evolution has not resulted in just different species, but it has also had to develop interspecies relationships.
Symbiosis, by which two organisms help each other for survival, could never have occurred by chance. In many plant species, other organisms are required for reproduction and survival. The salvia plant requires the bumblebee for cross-pollination. When the bee flies into the flower for nectar, it hits the stamen, which causes the anther to come down and hit it on the back, leaving pollen. When it flies into another salvia, it pollinates that plant. If there had once been a time when the bumblebee had no wings or the salvia had no stamen or anther, then that plant would no longer exist. Also, the Man of War jellyfish and the Nomeus fish are prime examples of symbiosis. The Nomeus fish swims around in between the Man of War’s tentacles and attracts prey. The Man of War feeds the Nomeus fish with scraps. The Man of War never hurts the Nomeus fish, and the two work together in a way that benefits both. This behavior could never have occurred by chance. In fact, if you backtrack through evolution, you see that many things required perfect timing. Imagine if the first creature to come onto land had legs but no lungs, or vice-versa. What if the first sea creatures had no fins or gills? And what if the first spiders had no way to spin web? What if the first insects had no wings or frogs had a normal tongue? These creatures could not survive in the world without these features. The last problem this paper will examine, although there are many others, once again deals with the cellular level, particularly chromosomes.
Chromosomes are the tiny threads in the nucleus that pass along inherited characteristics. If evolution were true, it would seem that as you gradually saw more and more advanced species, the number of chromosomes would slowly grow. This is not the case. In fact, if you look at a small number of animals, in the order in which they supposedly evolved, then you see that there is no pattern. Earthworms have thirty-two, while crayfish have two hundred and eight. Chickens have eighteen, while horses have sixty, and cows have only sixteen. Humans have only forty-six. In other words the evidence even on this level does not bear evolution up. Incredibly, there is almost NO evidence for evolution, and what there is happens to be highly controversial, even among evolutionists.
All in all, evolution has many faults that have been hidden from the public eye. It is made to seem like all the evidence supports it, and only a fool could disbelieve it. In reality, it seems as though very little actually backs it up. The evidence points away from evolution, but it is up to you to decide what you believe. Regardless, there are many other problems with the hypothesis of evolution which were not discussed here. Obviously, evolution is not the answer to our origins, as was proven several times here.

Much of the accusations I see about Christianity, Jesus(Yahushua), or God(Yahweh) are based on assumptions, over compliactions, and concepts attributed to them by the debater and then attacked.
In reading the bible from start to finish you can see God steadily trying to get a basic concept across to people and having to dumb it down over and over. You might disagree with that assessment of what was going on but I maintain that its a valid viewpoint to take. When Jesus came he boiled everything down in to just two basic and extremely simple rules to try to live by so people just might be able to get into the groove he was going for. And even those two rules could be simplified into one word. Love.
But how can God be love when he lets bad things happen to people? The viewpoint here about earthly 'suffering' is rather silly from a perspective including eternity with God. Saying we're children of God, as the connotation we have implies, doesnt give the right feel to many people these days. Christians adopted children in some ways, but more on that later.
God knows what we're capable of. God knows about our ultimate state of existence. If I try to teach a puppy not to play too roughly with the kitten but he keeps at it and I know the puppy will be okay afterward, am I evil for allowing the puppy to continue until his nose gets swiped? God knew Job was made of tough stuff. The devil doesnt have the level of understanding God does, he didnt necessarily have a clue what Job would do. He just wanted a shot at someone God loved because thats his nature.(and no, the numbers 22 verse does not refer to the devil. An adversary and 'the adversary' arent the same thing. Especially when the entity sent as an adversary was specifically identified) So God lets bad things happen to Job. God knows that Job is in no longterm or real danger. Comparing human life to eternity and crying foul is like complaining one day when you fall down in the Moon Walk at a county fair. Further, God went out of his way to make sure Job was much better off afterwards.
That train of thought takes us to: "If god knows what we're doing how can we have free will?" And thats a silly concept :P Knowledge of an event does not equate into control over that event. Understanding of what will happen based on understanding of the thing that is involved does not change or impact the actions of the thing itself. Some people are predictable. Some of us know people who we can predict what they'll say with absolute certainty. Doesnt mean we made them say it.
So whats the point of free will if he already knows things and he doesnt want us to do some of the things we do? Free Will is the entire point of existence on this world. Pick him or dont. I dont think its an odd concept that he's not all that interested in hanging out with people who arent interested in hanging out with him. Some peope here have started to scratch the surface abotu Sheol and hell already. Basically, the idea is that you can be close to God or be away from him. Right now he's everywhere around and within you. You can choose for him to go away, in a sense. Blaming him for the state of the area where he isnt at is an odd thing to me. Blaming him for the choice that someone makes themselves is even stranger to me. How can you yell at him for not taking you in to his eternal abode when you dont want to go there. You dont want to go but you want him to take you against your will?
I am more of a pot a man made in relation to God than I am a child to him, by default. I am a creation. I am created to serve. If I am useless, I will not be used. If I refuse to bring anything good to my creator(and it is a choice) then I will be thrown out. In choosing to become that tool and be used do I gain a status more aking to being a "child of God." But make no mistake that this a father figure who will not force me to be safe. He'll keep me safe if I want it though.
And what about God's nature? Is God all powerful? I find that question silly. We cant effectively measure how powerful God is. We cant effectively measure all powerful. For the purposes of his existence, our existence, faith in him, the events that have or will happen on this planet and beyond...its irrelevant :) God felt regret in the Bible <gasp!> and his mood could be swayed by the behavior of the people he interacted with. Does this imply some fault in the level of knowledge or understanding he has? Only for those interested in debating definitions and connotations instead of what is presented. God also presents an extreme amount of knowledge and foresight. The practical application of his mental faculties within existence as we know it is all that matters. Personally, I like that he has moods and reacts dynamically to a changing world. Theres an awesome quote from the bible where, I forget who :( , condemns the idea that God isnt dynamic with a prophetic mention of the future of a specific area...now I have to go find it...
Trying to quantify God's level of strength is a waste of time but more importantly an over complication. The Bible and the teachings of God on his own and through Jesus are usually best taken in the simple terms that they're presented. People had a really hard time doing that throughout the bible and, reading their results, I'd rather not follow those footsteps. Like sin. People go nuts about sin. Sin is basically anything against God. Anything you do that God doesnt want you to do is a sin. Anything you want to do that he doesnt want you to do is a sin, just having it in your heart. A few rules are setup and people go nuts with them. They're simplified, people still go nuts. The whole love thing was so simple it had to be largely ignored. but we're all sinners. The idea isnt to ritualize your entire life or to fixate on actions or things. Its about accepting that you cant be perfect, accepting the hand of the perfect(we can define this now as Perfect=What God wants), taking the mindset laid out to you as an example, and making a real and sustained effort towards being what God wants you to be. You might be surprised at just how much can be changed with a little help. Some people claim that men cant even control looking at and lusting after pretty girls they see walking by or in pictures. How sad is that to give up when faced with such small hurdles.


Someone much earlier mentioned not ever seeing Jesus specifically say he was the son of God. Most of the references in the new testament with it are either people giving the title to him or people asking him and him saying yes.
The most notable instance of him being asked was when he was brought before the religious leaders who asked him. Jesus didnt just say he was the son of God when asked, he used the name of god(Yahweh). This was considered to be heresy by the law mongering leaders of the day even though God was pretty specific about his name and how he wanted people to know it and praise it. Jesus was ultimately killed for using that name, for defying unbiblical law and claiming a closeness to God that the people had distanced themselves from. He left no room for doubt about his claim to be from God. Now the trinity is later added in and subject to much more debate.
Someone else mentioned that many of the prophets wandered around in the desert or fasted before interacting with God. God did this for 'purity' reasons but its fun to poke at how too much sun and too little food could mess with people's heads. Whats worse, though, is that the founder of Islam and the founder of the Mormon church both originally claimed to have been contacted or possessed by demons before changing stories and saying it was an angel. :)


(Eek! long post. Apologies...hope someone gets something out of it.)

Now, I want to make a quick point. You can talk all you want about the Bible not making sense, or even make up tales about contradictions that someone else found in it, but the simple fact is that there is no alternative.
No alternative to that fantasy land? Think again.

If you really want to understand God better, go to a church and speak with a minister. I will not pretend to be able to answer all of your questions. However, I can explain to you why there is no other possibility.

I apologize profusely for putting something so long on, but this is a paper I once wrote on evolution. If you do not wish to read the whole thing, I cannot blame you. However, for those who are truly interesting in the thread I would encourage you to read it.


STARTS HERE __________
There are numerous faults in the well-known theory of evolution.
No, there are not. And attacking evolution IS NOT THE SAME as showing that there is a god.

And evolution IS NOT about the origin of life. That is abiogenesis.

At least know what the hell is going on before you snip-n-splat.

So... Romans 2:11-16 directly contradicts John 3:16?

Which book should we throw out?
All of them.

This is just a question, I'm not trying to be a smartarse and im not trying to sway peoples views because that would be silly but......

If god is omnipotent then he is all powerfull right??? well if he hates the rebellious (in particular 'demons') then how do people rebel? Surely he can stop such things?

Now thats done I wish to ask the athiests a question.

We all know about the big bang etc. but HOW did that happen and HOW do you KNOW it happened? Surely there is no hard proof.

Like i said earlier I'm not trying to hack people off, i just want to know the answers (if any).

God wants people who choose to do right, not robots who are programmed to go through the motions of right.

God is not omnipotent and that word is not used anywhere in the Bible. One thing that God can never do is make somebody choose to do anything. If He could, it would not be choice. To make somebody choose something is an oxymoron.

God wants people who choose to do right, not robots who are programmed to go through the motions of right.

God is not omnipotent and that word is not used anywhere in the Bible. One thing that God can never do is make somebody choose to do anything. If He could, it would not be choice. To make somebody choose something is an oxymoron.
Then explain the 10x in Exodus where god "hardens the heart of Pharoah" against letting the Israelites go.

God wants people who choose to do right, not robots who are programmed to go through the motions of right.

God is not omnipotent and that word is not used anywhere in the Bible. One thing that God can never do is make somebody choose to do anything. If He could, it would not be choice. To make somebody choose something is an oxymoron.


Revelations 19:6 "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God OMNIPOTENT reigneth."

Revelations 19:6 "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God OMNIPOTENT reigneth."

Version?

Then explain the 10x in Exodus where god "hardens the heart of Pharoah" against letting the Israelites go.

Pharoah was easy to manipulate.

Version?

The only one (I have been told) that counts: The King James Version

(Actually, I notice "omnipotent" in the Modern King James and the Webster versions, as well).

In Greek, it was 'Pantokrator', or "he holds sway over all things", for which, "omnipotent" seems a better translation than the 'almighty' that the Standard and International versions give.

The only one (I have been told) that counts: The King James Version

(Actually, I notice "omnipotent" in the Modern King James and the Webster versions, as well).

In Greek, it was 'Pantokrator', or "he holds sway over all things", for which, "omnipotent" seems a better translation than the 'almighty' that the Standard and International versions give.

Sorry you were told wrong. :(

...but are we "things"?

...and does pantokrator mean total control over every aspect of all things?

Sorry you were told wrong. :(

...but are we "things"?

...and does pantokrator mean total control over every aspect of all things?

I was told wrong? There is a more authoritative version of the Bible? Now, I am intrigued... which version(s) of the Bible are considered superior to the KJV?

In fact, given the provenence of the KJV, how CAN another bible be superior?

We are all things. Everything is things. Otherwise I imagine it would say, "Holds sway over all things - but people aren't things"... or something like that.

pantokrator... "holds sway over all things" I don't know if it necessarily means that every aspect of every action of every thing is minutely controlled, but it does kind of imply that an action happens within the scope of control... variant translations of "the ruler of all" and "almighty" do not, in any way, seem to lessen the impact of the intention: Nothing happens without His will.

Or at least, that's how I read it.

First, just a reminder of my atheist beliefs... LOL!

Wrong comes in two flavours: Evil, and bad. I fully agree with you that it was NOT a sin for them to eat the apple from the tree of knowledge - it couldn't be, as they had no concept of good and evil. Thus, no moral sanctions apply.

HOWEVER, they DID know that it was WRONG (Bad) to eat from the tree of knowledge... they were TOLD as much. It was not an ethical issue - but rather one of rule of law...

When your child disobeys you, and sticks a screwdriver in the lightsocket, and gets a shock... he was WRONG to do so. He was not SINNING... and in no way was committing an evil act LOL! But he was told NOT to stick things in the socket, and disobeying that rule was both wrong, and folly. (As a child, I just couldn't seem to learn that rule LOL! I got more than my share of shocks testing to see if it would happen again!)

In that way, Adam and Eve WERE wrong. They knew the consequences, and therefore were accountable for their actions, and as such had to pay those consequences. They were NOT, however, sinners, and did not commit EVIL.

Or that's how the story goes ;)

*similar atheist disclaimer*

ya but you are overlooking 2 things

eve did not REALLY know the consequences before she ate the first apple. being told is not the same as knowing. perhaps your mom told you you would get a shock if you stuck a screw driver into that socket, but you didnt REALLY know what that meant until you did it. (and apparently YOU didnt really know until you had done it several times. hmmmm)

eve at the apple THEN SHE KNEW, then she gave the apple to adam to eat. HE didnt know but she sure did. so SHE is the source of original sin. she knew good and evil and she chose to drag adam right into evil. what a bad girl!

I was told wrong? There is a more authoritative version of the Bible? Now, I am intrigued... which version(s) of the Bible are considered superior to the KJV?

In fact, given the provenence of the KJV, how CAN another bible be superior?

The "provenence of the KJV"? *LOL*

The KJV is the most politically biased translation of the Bible that has ever been made, except for the Roman Catholic. James II actually executed biblical scholars that refused to spin things the way he wanted them.

We are all things. Everything is things. Otherwise I imagine it would say, "Holds sway over all things - but people aren't things"... or something like that.

You seem to be imagining. ;) That's good, but here I thought you knew Greek :cool:

pantokrator... "holds sway over all things" I don't know if it necessarily means that every aspect of every action of every thing is minutely controlled, but it does kind of imply that an action happens within the scope of control... variant translations of "the ruler of all" and "almighty" do not, in any way, seem to lessen the impact of the intention: Nothing happens without His will.

Or at least, that's how I read it.

So in fact for all you know the "things" within the word pantokrator means "things" as we understand the word... and as I understand it, while words that refer to people can hold the grammatic position of objects, people are not objects, not "things". Not in polite company anyway.

"The ruler of all" is actually something of an equivalent to one valid definition of "He who holds sway over all things", as a synonym for "sway" in that phrase is "dominion" ( dictionary.reference.com , "hold sway").

I hold sway over The Dominion of the Lesser Evil, but I still can't seem to get rid of those pesky Civil Rights ;)

The "provenence of the KJV"? *LOL*

The KJV is the most politically biased translation of the Bible that has ever been made, except for the Roman Catholic. James II actually executed biblical scholars that refused to spin things the way he wanted them.


Oh - I know that there is debate over the ACTUAL provenence of the King James Version, but, the fact remains that it is definitively the most authoritative version - just because of it's provenence.

So, history records that James was a murderous miscreant, and that he did bad things... and that he was the patron of a bible translation - which obviously would be of a fashion to meet his approval...

But the Divine Provenence - James was King of England. English Kings rule by Divine Right - and it doesn't matter how you got there, once you're there, it is Divine Right. That Divine Right is a papal commendation - but I can't remember which pope right off... and the Pope can make those decisions because of Dogmatic Law.

So, James approves the best version, because he was "chosen by God".

So in fact for all you know the "things" within the word pantokrator means "things" as we understand the word... and as I understand it, while words that refer to people can hold the grammatic position of objects, people are not objects, not "things". Not in polite company anyway.

"The ruler of all" is actually something of an equivalent to one valid definition of "He who holds sway over all things", as a synonym for "sway" in that phrase is "dominion" ( dictionary.reference.com , "hold sway").

I hold sway over The Dominion of the Lesser Evil, but I still can't seem to get rid of those pesky Civil Rights ;)

I do have some reason to suspect that people can be termed as "things" within God's inspired word... Matthew 13:41 "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all THINGS that offend, and them which do iniquity" - implies (from context) that people are under the aegis of 'things'.

Also - in that passage, "Things" is the Greek "Pas" which can be translated as "all" (of people), "all the world" or "everyone", as in Matthew 1:17 "So ALL the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen "

Oh - I know that there is debate over the ACTUAL provenence of the King James Version, but, the fact remains that it is definitively the most authoritative version - just because of it's provenence.

So, history records that James was a murderous miscreant, and that he did bad things... and that he was the patron of a bible translation - which obviously would be of a fashion to meet his approval...

But the Divine Provenence - James was King of England. English Kings rule by Divine Right - and it doesn't matter how you got there, once you're there, it is Divine Right. That Divine Right is a papal commendation - but I can't remember which pope right off... and the Pope can make those decisions because of Dogmatic Law.

So, James approves the best version, because he was "chosen by God".

Find me where the scriptures support Anglicanism, a religion founded for the purpose of allowing the King to ignore Y'shua's teachings about divorce, and I will reconsider the "provenence" of the KJV. Hell, find me where it says that "the devine right of kings" extends to altering holy scriptures.

I do have some reason to suspect that people can be termed as "things" within God's inspired word... Matthew 13:41 "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all THINGS that offend, and them which do iniquity" - implies (from context) that people are under the aegis of 'things'.

Also - in that passage, "Things" is the Greek "Pas" which can be translated as "all" (of people), "all the world" or "everyone", as in Matthew 1:17 "So ALL the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen "

Actually, try that context this way: "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, AND them which do iniquity". Sounds to me like its talking about things (idols) AND people (sinners).

Now this one: Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

I really don't get your second part there. "All" as in "dominion (kingship) over all people", right?

Well, some of the stuff is based on history, but if you take it technically you're gonna be in trouble. I mean, sciences says that the huge flood probably happened, it flooded the whole world, which apparently at that time did not include the Americas :-) I think we were going off topic jsut a little bit, except not REALLY, but I only read the first few pages pof it, sorry if I'm repeating anything.

As for what I know about the bible, The Bible The Complete Word of God (abridged) is incredibly funny http://www.reducedshakespeare.com/bible.html, the http://capalert.com guy makes me laugh, and sites that quote Harry Potter as evil make me laugh (http://www.hpana.com/news.17427.26.html), especially: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1485.cfm
Okay, that's way off topic but very funny as well.

Needless to say my knowlege is very limited, except for the brief times in church (since I was very very little) where I WASN'T asleep. All I know about Jesus I learned from the Bible (abridged).

Although I am an agnostic, I admire Jesus as a great man. However, I honestly believe that over the past two millenia, his message has been skewed too much by people. I believe that Christianity should only abide by Jesus's actual doctrines, no matter how great Church doctrines are

Although I am an agnostic, I admire Jesus as a great man. However, I honestly believe that over the past two millenia, his message has been skewed too much by people. I believe that Christianity should only abide by Jesus's actual doctrines, no matter how great Church doctrines are

Amen.

Im an atheist and I honestly think that jesus was a psychotic, for believing he was the son of god and the savior of the world... BUT: I think he must have been a great personality, because he fought for something lots of us support: peace. Noone that stands up for peace and humanity can be a bad person.

I also agree completely with the words of Superpower07.

Find me where the scriptures support Anglicanism, a religion founded for the purpose of allowing the King to ignore Y'shua's teachings about divorce, and I will reconsider the "provenence" of the KJV. Hell, find me where it says that "the devine right of kings" extends to altering holy scriptures.


This is one of those situations where you are not going to find scriptural support... since it was the dictate of a Pope that made it so... and the Pope has the right to speak god's will on Earth due to dogmatic law, (which I seem to run something along the lines of "That which you say on Earth, I shall uphold in Heaven"). A Pope said it, so its' true... at least that's the way they tell it.

I'm not sure if there is a Bible with a 'better' provenence than that.


Actually, try that context this way: "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, AND them which do iniquity". Sounds to me like its talking about things (idols) AND people (sinners).

Now this one: Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

I really don't get your second part there. "All" as in "dominion (kingship) over all people", right?

I'm checking the context of Matthew 13:41 from the Greek, and we have "Huios anthropos apostello autos aggelos kai sullego ek autos Basileia PAS skandalon kai poieo anomia", or "Son, man forth his angels and gather of his kingdom, things offend and do iniquity".

So, it seems that the 'things' offend and do the inquity, which brings us back to the people as 'things' thing.

Matthew 1:17 "So ALL the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen"

All in this context ('Pas' again) can mean "Everyone", "All the world" or "all people", so:

"So, ALL PEOPLE OF the generations from Abraham..." or
"So, EVERYONE (of) the generations from Abraham"

Im an atheist and I honestly think that jesus was a psychotic, for believing he was the son of god and the savior of the world... BUT: I think he must have been a great personality, because he fought for something lots of us support: peace. Noone that stands up for peace and humanity can be a bad person.

The issue is that since Jesus didn't write anything down, there's really no way to know if he did or said anything resembling what his followers attribute to him.

That said, my grandfather used to believe HE was the messiah. We considered him psychotic. For me, it would be hypocritical to not apply the same standards to JC. ;)

This is one of those situations where you are not going to find scriptural support... since it was the dictate of a Pope that made it so... and the Pope has the right to speak god's will on Earth due to dogmatic law, (which I seem to run something along the lines of "That which you say on Earth, I shall uphold in Heaven"). A Pope said it, so its' true... at least that's the way they tell it.

I'm not sure if there is a Bible with a 'better' provenence than that.

Uhm... how about the Hebrew version, for the OT? Honestly, because the Pope said (as if he ever would) that kings other than himself have the right to change scriptures? If he ever did, bfd. He's not saint Peter (who was never given any authority over scriptures either), he's not my Pope, and I do not give a rat's ass what "canon law" says. Aside from that, Anglicanism was in direct opposition to Roman Catholicism when it was founded, and all Anglicans were excommunicated. So I hardly think the Pope is much of an authority to support it, or its grossly errent book.

I'm checking the context of Matthew 13:41 from the Greek, and we have "Huios anthropos apostello autos aggelos kai sullego ek autos Basileia PAS skandalon kai poieo anomia", or "Son, man forth his angels and gather of his kingdom, things offend and do iniquity".

So, it seems that the 'things' offend and do the inquity, which brings us back to the people as 'things' thing.

Since you haven't even translated that into anything that makes sense, I don't see how you can reach any conclusion.

Matthew 1:17 "So ALL the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen"

All in this context ('Pas' again) can mean "Everyone", "All the world" or "all people", so:

"So, ALL PEOPLE OF the generations from Abraham..." or
"So, EVERYONE (of) the generations from Abraham"

But how does this relate to people = things, is what I am asking?

And what about the verse I provided, where God laments that He would have His people return to him but they choose not to?

Imagine some eternal being coming down to earth to teach. He has eternal peace and eternal wisdom. Then read Matthew 5-7. Then 1 John. Words........That's how we were made. What is older than the earth? Life. Jesus is the Tree of Life. Older than the universe.

Imagine some eternal being
Beings cannot be eternal.

The issue is that since Jesus didn't write anything down, there's really no way to know if he did or said anything resembling what his followers attribute to him.

That said, my grandfather used to believe HE was the messiah. We considered him psychotic. For me, it would be hypocritical to not apply the same standards to JC. ;)

:D

This was the '00s; everyone was bloodthirsty.

This is one of those situations where you are not going to find scriptural support... since it was the dictate of a Pope that made it so...

A dictate from the pope gave the English Crown the right to reinterprete scripture and break away from the Catholic Church?
I realise that some popes have been mad, bad or dangerous to know, but this just seems silly

and the Pope has the right to speak god's will on Earth due to dogmatic law, (which I seem to run something along the lines of "That which you say on Earth, I shall uphold in Heaven"). A Pope said it, so its' true... at least that's the way they tell it.

You infer that it is frequently used.

Imagine some eternal beingBeings cannot be eternal.

Imagine BAAWA, but with an imagination ;)

A dictate from the pope gave the English Crown the right to reinterprete scripture and break away from the Catholic Church?
I realise that some popes have been mad, bad or dangerous to know, but this just seems silly



You infer that it is frequently used.

Popes, while always being the 'representatives' of god on earth, have also been human - and some have acted in human interests - like the need to form earthly alliances, I guess. The thing is - once a Pope allows a concept like 'divine right of Kings', it is hard for a later Pope to naysay it, short of an absolute recant... which would be difficult to push through, given the claim that the inspiration for the law was divine in the first place.

I don't know that dogmatic law is commonly used, but it IS always available as a tool... for instance, it is always an option that a pope could declare some kind of 'sin amnesty', in which case any 'sinner' could be given absolution... like the situation in the film "Dogma". (A film which raises some intersting questions about the nature of dogmatic law).

Popes, while always being the 'representatives' of god on earth, have also been human - and some have acted in human interests - like the need to form earthly alliances, I guess. The thing is - once a Pope allows a concept like 'divine right of Kings', it is hard for a later Pope to naysay it, short of an absolute recant... which would be difficult to push through, given the claim that the inspiration for the law was divine in the first place.

I don't know that dogmatic law is commonly used, but it IS always available as a tool... for instance, it is always an option that a pope could declare some kind of 'sin amnesty', in which case any 'sinner' could be given absolution... like the situation in the film "Dogma". (A film which raises some intersting questions about the nature of dogmatic law).

Are you a Roman Catholic? Because it sounds like you are. If so, please keep in mind that although I find most lay Catholics to be very Christian people in terms of their charity, compassion and sense of forgiveness, your sect virtually whiped mine from the face of the Earth about 1700 years ago, along with all other true Christian sects and more than a few of their fellow pagans, and that I consider the idea of "dogmatic law" and the "divine" authority of the Pope to be about the most anti-Christian doctrine since the Sanhadrin decided to frame Y'shua and have him crucified. It means less than nothing to me, so if you cannot present a scriptural argument based on scripture, just say so.

Uhm... how about the Hebrew version, for the OT? Honestly, because the Pope said (as if he ever would) that kings other than himself have the right to change scriptures? If he ever did, bfd. He's not saint Peter (who was never given any authority over scriptures either), he's not my Pope, and I do not give a rat's ass what "canon law" says. Aside from that, Anglicanism was in direct opposition to Roman Catholicism when it was founded, and all Anglicans were excommunicated. So I hardly think the Pope is much of an authority to support it, or its grossly errent book.


Well, David and Solomon are a kind of example of "Divine Right", so that is the probable scriptural basis. Popes are the inheritors of Peter's church, so they have their authority froma about as high a source as it can get: Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art PETER, and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

That kind of makes the Pope the only authority, short of the Second Coming, that CAN decide on the canonisation of scripture. And though non-catholics of all denominations may argue against it, Jesus' words to Peter make tghe Catholic church the only true church... even if you disagree with their interpretations of scripture - and dogmatic law means that you can't really disagree with their interpretation, because if the Pope says it is true, it IS true.


Since you haven't even translated that into anything that makes sense, I don't see how you can reach any conclusion.


Sorry - I was just doing a literal translation on word for word... let me see if I can do a contextual translation:" The son of man (used as a link to messianic prophecy) man (generic, and as opposed to angels, for example) orders to go to a place appointed himself (in this passage, taken as "his" Angels (or messengers) and to gather up out from himself (taken as "his", again) kingdom (or dominion), all things (or everyone) that entrap (taken as "offend") and do (or make) transgression of the law (iniquity)"

"The Son of man orders his Angels, to go to a place appointed, and to gather up from his kingdom all THINGS that offend (any person or thing that 'entraps' one into error or sin) and make trangression against law."

But how does this relate to people = things, is what I am asking?


It relates to the people=things situation because of the use of the common word (which I had capitalised to try to show my emphasis): in the form of the word "Pas". "God holds sway over all things", where things is represented in the text by "Pas" - and other occasions where "Pas" is used commonly refer to things also... but, in some contexts, those things are people (or the concepts of multiple people)

as in: Matthew 1:17 "So ALL the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen"

where the implication is "So ALL PEOPLE OF the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen", rather than the concept of inanimate things.. but still the same root is used, in the form of "Pas" - so people can be a thing.


And what about the verse I provided, where God laments that He would have His people return to him but they choose not to?

Um... I have looked at Matthew 23:37, but I don't see the connection... in Greek the term 'pas' is not used, and I don't really see an interpretation of 'things'... or is this on a different subject to the 'pas' issue?

Are you a Roman Catholic? Because it sounds like you are. If so, please keep in mind that although I find most lay Catholics to be very Christian people in terms of their charity, compassion and sense of forgiveness, your sect virtually whiped mine from the face of the Earth about 1700 years ago, along with all other true Christian sects and more than a few of their fellow pagans, and that I consider the idea of "dogmatic law" and the "divine" authority of the Pope to be about the most anti-Christian doctrine since the Sanhadrin decided to frame Y'shua and have him crucified. It means less than nothing to me, so if you cannot present a scriptural argument based on scripture, just say so.

First, to answer your question, No, I am not a catholic, although I was raised in a family that had one catholic parent (and one Anglican - you can appreciate that it was a fairly passionate environment).

In defence of catholics, however, they believe themselves to be the only religious body that has the 'true word' of god - in that they believe all other 'christian sects' are heretics... and wiping out heretics is a part of what organised religions do. The christians did the same thing in Europe and the middle east (and there are those that thing christians are doing the same thing in the middle east today). The christians did the same thing to catholics and jews in Europe just a few hundred years ago. All 'christian' peoples turned on the 'satanists' and the 'wiccans', and the Essenic and Cathar sects were hunted to practical extinction by Catholics and Christians.

Also, the Jews in Canaan carried out a similar policy of destroying non-believers, and, incidentally, carried their holy war to the non-believers like wiccans even then.

Also - you could actually argue that the Sanhedrin acted in FAVOUR of Christ, rather than against him... since, without the crucifixion it could be argued he was just a Jewish rabble-rouser - and it was his martyrdom that clinched the 'messianic prophecy' deal.

Popes, while always being the 'representatives' of god on earth, have also been human - and some have acted in human interests - like the need to form earthly alliances, I guess. The thing is - once a Pope allows a concept like 'divine right of Kings', it is hard for a later Pope to naysay it, short of an absolute recant... which would be difficult to push through, given the claim that the inspiration for the law was divine in the first place.

1. When was the Divine Right of kings announced, and by whom?
2. Did the pope speak "ex cathedra" on the concept.
3. If it was a Catholic concept why was an English Protestant one of the most famous to use it/claim it?

I don't know that dogmatic law is commonly used, but it IS always available as a tool... for instance, it is always an option that a pope could declare some kind of 'sin amnesty', in which case any 'sinner' could be given absolution... like the situation in the film "Dogma". (A film which raises some intersting questions about the nature of dogmatic law).
It is an indulgence, not a 'sin amnesty' slightly different.

1. When was the Divine Right of kings announced, and by whom?
2. Did the pope speak "ex cathedra" on the concept.
3. If it was a Catholic concept why was an English Protestant one of the most famous to use it/claim it?


It is an indulgence, not a 'sin amnesty' slightly different.

First: to start at the last, that is why 'sin amnesty' is emphsised as it is... that is just my term for a concept, and, since it is my term, I placed it in single quotations... to show it to be unofficial.

Second: I am finding it hard to pin a specific name to the doctrine of Divine Right, right at the moment, but it became part of the 'doctrine of the church' - possibly through a direct absorbtion of Saint Augustines' principles, so it obviously acheived some level of Papal validation.

That the Catholic church continued to act on Augustines' principles (openly, at least until the end of the Middle Ages) shows that the principle was accepted at the highest levels - and they were not afraid to use the concept of Divine Right to gain political support, e.g. obtaining Pepin the Short's aid against Lombardy.

The divine right of kings is an evolution of a concept. Paul set out the basic rules of it in Romans 13:1 to Romans 13:7, effectively giving a scriptural basis for divine right - which was later expanded on by Saint Augustine in his “de Civitate Dei”. According to Saint Augustine, Monarchs are placed on their thrones in order to serve a specific purpose, and to oppose that purpose is to oppose god.

The Papacy was so impressed with Augustine that he was not only canonised, but also made a “Doctor of the Church”, effectively codifying his precepts. The Papacy has also occasionally capitalised on the Augustine principles - such as in the case of Frederick von Hohenstaufen, from whom the Catholic Church ‘withdrew’ the assertion of Divine Right.

James himself made an eloquent argument in the “Basilicon Doron”, defining both his own belief, and his reasons for opposing the teachings of the “See of Peter”, even while maintaining that kingship was according to Augustine principles. Basically - he embraces the scripture, embraces the concept of divine right, but believes most Catholics to be corrupt.

Jacques-Benigne Bossuet expanded further upon the theory, claiming that the divine bestowal of power legitimates autocracy, and that the rule of kings is an expression of the will of god.

In further defence of the theory, in the case of the English Monarchy, there is a lineage that directly proves the current Monarch to be a descendent of King David - who of course, ruled directly through Divine Right.

I consider the idea of "dogmatic law" and the "divine" authority of the Pope to be about the most anti-Christian doctrine since the Sanhadrin decided to frame Y'shua and have him crucified.

Exactly what was he "framed" for?

(Incidentally... how exactly would the Sanhedrin's actions constitute an "anti-Christian doctrine?)

There is some evidence that Jesus moved to Kashmir after his apparent "resurection".

Im off to bed, if you want me to give you further details, telegram me or something.

The Christian faith as taught by Jesus and the Christian Church as erected by Paul are two unfortunately different things, one hardly bearing any resemblence to the other.

Here's a question for you, UC, as one Christian to another. What is the point of Judgement? What purpose does it serve? What does God gain by it? What, exactly, is the purpose for "punishing" sin? People are expected to make this enternal decision based on no evidence with no understanding of the concepts behind it and a sneaking suspicion that a God who would create all of reality just to destroy it is at best pointless and, at worst, absolutely insane.

As for Jesus "comforting and wiping away their tears", I'm sorry, I have to agree with Bottle on this one. That sort of paints Jesus out as an abusive spouse. Like God's standing around in Heaven smiting people then saying, "See what you made me do because I love you so much?" I don't buy that rationale for men who beat their wives and children so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to buy it for the Creator of All Existance. If that's really his methodology, let horrible things happen and then pass judgement so more horrible things will happen and then at the end of it all, pat you on the head, well, he's a pretty crappy God.

First off if you are a Christian then you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, not just something someone wrote. And yes you are expected, if you believe, (not that you have to believe, but if you believe), to do it without evidence. It's called faith. "Faith is the substance of things hope for, evidence of things not seen." Also, you are not expected to understand God because that is not possible. If he made us to understand him, then we wouldn't need faith and you enter the kingdom by faith. That makes no sense. There is no difference between the church established by Paul except that there was an established gathering, a difference in method not content. Any real believer knows that God is no longer about laws and rules, but about relationship and faith. It does not matter the way, what matters is the heart. The rest is preference and choice. And lastly, it is not for naught, who knows what God has planned after, with the new earth. For everything there is a time and season.

Mommy she love Jesus but not like others did, for she has a special bottle in which our savoir lived.

First off if you are a Christian then you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, not just something someone wrote. And yes you are expected, if you believe, (not that you have to believe, but if you believe), to do it without evidence. It's called faith.

See... now that is why Kierkegaard pisses me off so much - previous to his rantings about the logic of "Making the Leap of Faith" and all that crap, Christians were more than willing to look at making god work within logic -

I am an atheist, granted, but I used to be a priest... and while I was NEVER a catholic, many great thinkers came from the catholic clergy - Way back when... until Keirkegaard screwed it up. NOW instead of taking the challenging way of making any worthy god work within logic and rationality, (which I assume he/she/it would have created in the first place), Christians take the easy way out: "Logic has nought to do with it... it is all about the 'Leap of Faith.'" It's a cop out. Similar to "Would you rather believe scientists? Or god?" C'mon!

Kierkegaard made it an acceptable cop out, and I hold HIM directly responsible. If I were god, I'd be CHOKED! In one quick publication, he transformed my believers from struggling, but worthy believers, to a flock of sheep. " It matters not the way, but what is in the heart? That makes the guy (god) sound insecure - merely needing to be worshipped for ego sake - not for the betterment of His creation - maybe the guy needs a hug?

Sorry - Not pissed off at the Christians, just Kierkegaard for lowering the requirements for debate and intellectual exploration of theology.