NationStates Jolt Archive

It's simple really. God is supposed to know everything,assuming he exists (he doesn't). Past, present or future, God knows what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. So could someone explain Genesis 4:9 which reads:

"Afterward the Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother? Where is Abel?"

Now a God who knows everything has no reason to ask that question. He knows that Cain killed Abel.

Anyone got a reason that can't be frittered away?

Oh simple, I don't follow Christianity. :D

He's behind you.....

Oh no he isn't!

Oh yes he is!

*God gets hit by a man wielding a frying pan*

It's like when your tell your parents that you are going to a friends, then go to a party someplace else. They find out, and when you get home, they ask you what you did, even though know where you were, and what you did. They give you a chance to NOT lie, and confess to what you did.

That's what God was doing. He was giving Cain a chance to confess, and repent and such.

So could someone explain Genesis 4:9
Thats stupid, I can get rid of that problem easy, there were allways opinions (even with jewish scholars) that most of the bible was writeen by humans anyway, therefore it's only story telling.

Bringing proof from a humans story is silly and only works if the reason you believe in god in the first place is because of the bible (which isn't the reason for most of us).

didnt your mother ever ask you "noble, did you cut the tail off the cat?"
knowing full well that you did?

That's what God was doing. He was giving Cain a chance to confess, and repent and such.

A pointless exercise, considering that God knew what the answer would be before Cain even thought of killing Abel.

Now a God who knows everything has no reason to ask that question. He knows that Cain killed Abel.

Anyone got a reason that can't be frittered away?
Well maybe he was trying to play mind games with him, like when you KNOW someone took your last beer but instead of accusing them you say "hmmm... i wonder where my last beer went" etc

*shrugs*

Thats stupid, I can get rid of that problem easy, there were allways opinions (even with jewish scholars) that most of the bible was writeen by humans anyway, therefore it's only story telling.

Bringing proof from a humans story is silly and only works if the reason you believe in god in the first place is because of the bible (which isn't the reason for most of us).

Hmm...and here's me thinking it was the word of God.

A popular opinion is that God was writing through these men hundreds of years ago.

Well maybe he was trying to play mind games with him, like when you KNOW someone took your last beer but instead of accusing them you say "hmmm... i wonder where my last beer went" etc

*shrugs*

How fun can a game be when you know what's going to happen?

A pointless exercise, considering that God knew what the answer would be before Cain even thought of killing Abel.

Yes, but He still hoped it would happen.

It's simple really. God is supposed to know everything,assuming he exists (he doesn't). Past, present or future, God knows what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. So could someone explain Genesis 4:9 which reads:

"Afterward the Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother? Where is Abel?"

Now a God who knows everything has no reason to ask that question. He knows that Cain killed Abel.

Anyone got a reason that can't be frittered away?

1. You don't have a prove he doesn't exists.
2. Is that a - "rethorical question" - ??

Yes, but He still hoped it would happen.

What, did he have doubts about his all-knowingness?

1. You don't have a prove he doesn't exists.
2. Is that a - "rethorical question" - ??

1. But you don't have proof he does.
2. No, I was curious what people would say.

Strange how when one "Proof that God doesn't exist" thread comes up, more follow suit... (but then again, it's like that with most topical threads here, now ain't it? ;))

Anyway, it's much like Barlibgil and Ashmoria said. God already knew what happened, much like he already know what the outcome would be. However He did want to give Cain the chance of admitting his sin. It could be "pointless" as one said, but most parents do this. "Jimmy, did you break the vase?... You didn't? Then how did it get broken?... Oh really? Then why did I see you break it?"

If the child doesn't confess to the crime, then it shows that they're trying to cover it up--be it through pride, shame, etc. If they do confess, it makes things simple for the parent. Yes, God could have come down and said "Cain, you killed Abel! *SMITE!*", but where's the love in that? He gave Cain a chance to admit his crimes and redeem himself.

EDIT: You'll also notice the same kind of thing in Genesis 3, when God calls for Adam and Eve: "Where are you?" and "Why were you hiding?". He knew full well where they were and why they were there. Again, it's to give them a chance to confront the problem in a loving and rational manner.

Hmm...and here's me thinking it was the word of God.

A popular opinion is that God was writing through these men hundreds of years ago.

Popular, but not the only one, and it used to be less common 2,000 years ago (there is a discussion between the scholars Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Gamliel on the subject - did god really say all the bible)

Romanore said it..a lot better than I did...

Good job ;)

Romanore said it..a lot better than I did...

Good job ;)

Thanks. I do my best. :)

But you shouldn't go away unacredited. Kudos to you as well. ^^

God was mocking cain

How fun can a game be when you know what's going to happen?

maybe he or she made him or her self forget so he wouldnt know what was going to happen and then be suprised

Yes, God could have come down and said "Cain, you killed Abel! *SMITE!*", but where's the love in that?

Look up Genesis chapters 5 to 8.

For those of you without a Bible, that's The Flood. You know, with Noah et cetera.

One person: loving.
One planet: instant smiting, no reprentance, do not pass Eden do not collect 200 pounds...

:mad: How many times are people going to insult my faith today?

Ok pal, listen, and listen well: God does know everything. He knows what will heppen if people make certain choices. Man has free will, and God knows what a man can do, and what will happen with the choice that he makes. Yes, God did know what Caine did, and like that other guy said, he was giving him a chance to tell the truth.

For those of you who who say the Bible is flawed becuse it was written by men, I can tell you that you are wrong. It was written by the Holy Spirit, acting through the men who's hands wrote the words down in hebrew so long ago.

I really don't care if you beleive in him or not. Right now, I would just appreciate you not insulting the Christian faith anymore. I mean, I don't mock your big bang theory that states everyrhing came from nothing, or how stupid your decision is to beleive in nothing. I mean, if you think about it, there's all these religions out there, and the concequences of not beleiving in their god(s) are pretty harsh, and what if one of them is right? Isn't it worth it to take a guess as to which one is right? I mean, that's like someone telling you to choose the door to open that leads to the prize, but they choose to take the exit door instead of guessing at all! But you know what? Go ahead and make fun of me for believing that Jesus walked the earth and preformed miracles for God. I'll be laughing all the way to heaven.

maybe he or she made him or her self forget so he wouldnt know what was going to happen and then be suprised

What?

I'm so omnipitent I'm not going to be omnipitent to see what happens...

Even though omnipitent God would have already known what happens.

Look up Genesis chapters 5 to 8.

For those of you without a Bible, that's The Flood. You know, with Noah et cetera.

One person: loving.
One planet: instant smiting, no reprentance, do not pass Eden do not collect 200 pounds...
what? you have a problem with god killing everyone but noah and his family???

at least he didnt ask them where they were.

:mad: How many times are people going to insult my faith today?

Ok pal, listen, and listen well: God does know everything. He knows what will heppen if people make certain choices. Man has free will, and God knows what a man can do, and what will happen with the choice that he makes. Yes, God did know what Caine did, and like that other guy said, he was giving him a chance to tell the truth.

For those of you who who say the Bible is flawed becuse it was written by men, I can tell you that you are wrong. It was written by the Holy Spirit, acting through the men who's hands wrote the words down in hebrew so long ago.

I really don't care if you beleive in him or not. Right now, I would just appreciate you not insulting the Christian faith anymore. I mean, I don't mock your big bang theory that states everyrhing came from nothing, or how stupid your decision is to beleive in nothing. I mean, if you think about it, there's all these religions out there, and the concequences of not beleiving in their god(s) are pretty harsh, and what if one of them is right? Isn't it worth it to take a guess as to which one is right? I mean, that's like someone telling you to choose the door to open that leads to the prize, but they choose to take the exit door instead of guessing at all! But you know what? Go ahead and make fun of me for believing that Jesus walked the earth and preformed miracles for God. I'll be laughing all the way to heaven.
As many times as I possibly can. I'm very anti-Christian.

"God exists because I said so and I know he does and he loves you but if you don't love him he hates you and you go to hell but he loves me because I love him and worship him and if you don't believe in him you're biting the hand that feeds you and homosexuality is wrong and Jews are evil and women are inferior AMEN!" :p

ONE MORE THING! I forgot this!


YOU ALWAYS ASK FOR HARD PROOF THAT GOD EXHISTS. WHERE IS YOUR HARD PROOF THA HE DOES NOT?

Look up Genesis chapters 5 to 8.

For those of you without a Bible, that's The Flood. You know, with Noah et cetera.

One person: loving.
One planet: instant smiting, no reprentance, do not pass Eden do not collect 200 pounds...

They were destroyed because they were past redeeming quality and God knew it. Noah, however, still had a chance to be redeemed, as he still was a goodly and kind man at heart. Same with his family. They were still good and redeeming people. The rest of the world, apparently, were not. Else God wouldn't have used the Instant Smite card and given them all another chance.

Same with Sodom and Gamorrah. Same with Jericho and Ur and so on and so on... They were all past the point of coming back to goodness and light. God knew this and knew there was no point in trying to work the effort only to risk the lives of the Israelites in the process.

Smiting is a last resort to God. You see countless times His mercy, granting people (many very sinful) the chance at living. Many (if not all) don't deserve the kindness he displays, but He loves them enough to remain kind. For those who move too far into the dark for Him to save he then looks beyond them to the rest of the world, and decides to purge it of that spot of darkness in order to keep the rest safe from that dark influence.

The words "God" and "Proof" cannot logically coexist in the same sentance or context; the existence of God [or the denial of his existence] ultimately boils down to an arbitrary statement; i.e., a statement that has no observable relation to reality or objective fact. God cannot be proven or disproven, the assertation as to his existence is neither true nor false.

Therefore, it makes little sense to attempt to 'prove' either side of the argument, since it cannot be done: at least, it cannot be done with the 'evidence' we currently possess. The Bible isn't very impressive as a historical reference since many of the things that happen in it have not been verified.

How fun can a game be when you know what's going to happen?

Well, I don't know for sure, but I expect there could be a great deal of entertainment value in casting those that mocked you their entire life into a burning pit they must endure for eternity...or worse. If by chance he is real, there's little doubt you're going to find out.

What?

I'm so omnipitent I'm not going to be omnipitent to see what happens...

Even though omnipitent God would have already known what happens.

What you got a problem with my idea???

As many times as I possibly can. I'm very anti-Christian.

"God exists because I said so and I know he does and he loves you but if you don't love him he hates you and you go to hell but he loves me because I love him and worship him and if you don't believe in him you're biting the hand that feeds you and homosexuality is wrong and Jews are evil and women are inferior AMEN!" :p


Ok pal, lemme get you straight here.

#1, only dumb ass rednecks beleive Jews are evil. In a sense, Chrisians are jews+Jesus

#2, I do not beleive Women are inferior. Give me a verse in the Bible that directly states that.

#3, If homosexulity isn't wrong, then why do countless non-christian cultures around the world beleive it is wrong as well? The only community that really doesn't is the theist community, who are infamous for their complete lack of morals anway.

:mad: How many times are people going to insult my faith today?

Ok pal, listen, and listen well: God does know everything. He knows what will heppen if people make certain choices. Man has free will, and God knows what a man can do, and what will happen with the choice that he makes. Yes, God did know what Caine did, and like that other guy said, he was giving him a chance to tell the truth.

For those of you who who say the Bible is flawed becuse it was written by men, I can tell you that you are wrong. It was written by the Holy Spirit, acting through the men who's hands wrote the words down in hebrew so long ago.

I really don't care if you beleive in him or not. Right now, I would just appreciate you not insulting the Christian faith anymore. I mean, I don't mock your big bang theory that states everyrhing came from nothing, or how stupid your decision is to beleive in nothing. I mean, if you think about it, there's all these religions out there, and the concequences of not beleiving in their god(s) are pretty harsh, and what if one of them is right? Isn't it worth it to take a guess as to which one is right? I mean, that's like someone telling you to choose the door to open that leads to the prize, but they choose to take the exit door instead of guessing at all! But you know what? Go ahead and make fun of me for believing that Jesus walked the earth and preformed miracles for God. I'll be laughing all the way to heaven.

Woah woah, calm down. This sort of thing happens most weeks.

The "giving him a chance" thing has been said before.

Pascals Wager, eh? Think about this:

God is not stupid. Won't He know that you're just trying to get a free ride into Heaven? How can you sincerely believe in a God simply out of convenience?

It is quite insulting. It amounts to a thinly veiled threat, little better than saying "Believe in my God or He'll send you to Hell" (in fact, this is often the form it is presented in). Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a God to send her there in the first place. If you don't believe in Hell anyway, it's not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying "If you don't start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you're sleeping." Who would be worried by that?

All this and more can be found here. (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html)

I just like those 2 arguments in particular.

It's like when your tell your parents that you are going to a friends, then go to a party someplace else. They find out, and when you get home, they ask you what you did, even though know where you were, and what you did. They give you a chance to NOT lie, and confess to what you did.

That's what God was doing. He was giving Cain a chance to confess, and repent and such.

Exactly! God gace Cain the chance to confess even though He knew very well that Cain did kill his brother.
ONE MORE THING! I forgot this!


YOU ALWAYS ASK FOR HARD PROOF THAT GOD EXHISTS. WHERE IS YOUR HARD PROOF THA HE DOES NOT?
GO PANCAKETOPIA! GO GIRL, OR GUY! :D

Ok pal, lemme get you straight here.

#1, only dumb ass rednecks beleive Jews are evil. In a sense, Chrisians are jews+Jesus

#2, I do not beleive Women are inferior. Give me a verse in the Bible that directly states that.

#3, If homosexulity isn't wrong, then why do countless non-christian cultures around the world beleive it is wrong as well? The only community that really doesn't is the theist community, who are infamous for their complete lack of morals anway.
#1-Those dumbass rednecks are the only Christians I've ever met-I'm from Alabama.

#2-It's a common belief among Christians that women are inferior because Eve ate the golden apple or however that little bible story goes.

#3-Just because the vast majority believes one thing doesn't mean it's true.

#4-I didn't exactly expect you to agree with my post. I was teasing you Christian folks.

*snippeh*


Err... Nice display of Christ's love there, eh?

It's understandable to be frustrated at those who are skeptical, but also keep in mind that as there will always be believers, so too will there always be skeptics. Try to remember to keep a calm approach to them and let them know that we are appreciative of an open mind.

Alright? :) No harm no foul.

#2, I do not beleive Women are inferior. Give me a verse in the Bible that directly states that.

Corinthians 14:34.

Corinthians 14:34.


o just let me pull my handy dandy bible out of my ass. thanks for saying what it says

That argument doesn't disprove that god knows everything - all it does is say that the Christian bible is contradictory (unless of course - and I admittedly don't know the story well enough to determine this - it was a question searching for an admission rather than a question to get an answer he did not know).

o just let me pull my handy dandy bible out of my ass. thanks for saying what it says

"Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says."

Happy?

o just let me pull my handy dandy bible out of my ass. thanks for saying what it says
Apparently it says:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Corinthians 14:34.

Up in Heaven
Gabriel:*flips through Bible*Dammit, who gave this guy permission to write that!*Crosses that verse out*Dammit, why won't they let us make a second edition?


...

Well, what can we say, there are of crazes in every religion/belief segment/group...

#2-It's a common belief among Christians that women are inferior because Eve ate the golden apple or however that little bible story goes.


A Common belief, but wrong nonetheless. What many--both Christian and skeptic--fail to see when it comes to Eve and the fruit is that Adam was standing right there when it happened. At any point he could have stopped her and driven off the snake, but he too was enticed by the serpent. He was just as much to blame as the next guy...err.. girl.

"Both male and female He created them..." God created them both in His image. He didn't make one a little more like him and the other less, no. He made them equally. True, man is to be head of the household, but that doesn't equate superiority. It's a placement of responsibility. Both are equal, but hold different responsibilities.

I apologize about those who believe otherwise, and go so far as to use that misnomer to their advantage. It's unfortunate and, at times, downright evil.

You are forgetting one very basic thing: Humans have the ability to choose. And that is the one thing that God cannot know, he cannot know which choices a person will make.

Happy?
Sure am! Thanks for askin

You are forgetting one very basic thing: Humans have the ability to choose. And that is the one thing that God cannot know, he cannot know which choices a person will make.

Therefore he is not all-knowing.

Look up Genesis chapters 5 to 8.

For those of you without a Bible, that's The Flood. You know, with Noah et cetera.

One person: loving.
One planet: instant smiting, no reprentance, do not pass Eden do not collect 200 pounds...

I'd like you to take this one step further, namely, to chapter 9 of Genesis. This is the part where God makes a rainbow and promises Noah that he will never destroy the creatures of the earth with a flood again. Perhaps there is some love in this story afterall. Next, taking a moment to understand your opponent's point of view in any debate is essential to doing well. It's something that a lot of professing Christians fail to do. I'm sorry we can't all be open minded, but at the same time, I'd be hard pressed to find someone who enjoys bashing Christians who has ever bothered to look at things from their point of view. That being said, I'd like you all to go do some 'homework' and understand what it is that you're talking about before trying to piss people off. Props to Romanore for some good arguments.

Pascal's wager is not entirely flawed. The fact is that after being religious for a while Christianity is likely to grow on the atheist, I will admit it is a bad reason for being religious but after years of worship it is likely that after a little internal strife(most change comes with internal strife), the brainwash..er I mean conversion will be complete. As well really little is given up by being religious, after all, if all there is after death is oblivion why does it matter how you wasted your life?

#1-Those dumbass rednecks are the only Christians I've ever met-I'm from Alabama. Ouch! Try a more 'liberal' church. I'd reccomend the Quakers or a good URC.

#2-It's a common belief among Christians that women are inferior because Eve ate the golden apple or however that little bible story goes. Passed me by there. The church here seems pretty egalitarian (both parents are ministers, gives a good look at the internals).

#3-Just because the vast majority believes one thing doesn't mean it's true.You are right there. Of course there's the theory that 'the majority is always right' gotta love democracy.

#4-I didn't exactly expect you to agree with my post. I was teasing you Christian folks. A dangerous sport at the best of times. Begone heretic lest I visit thee with cake! ;)

Answers in the bold.

"Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says."

Happy?

For one it was a cultural law, not a universal. Cutural laws only applied to those specific people at that specific time or era. Universal laws apply to everyone at all times. Paul knew this as he wrote it, much like he knew that eating kosher meat was only applied to the Jews, as he told the Gentiles it was not necessary of them to apply that law to them.

Also, for the contexts of Corinthains 13:34-25, go here (http://www.christiancourier.com/notes/silentWomen.htm). You might find it interesting. :)

Answers in the bold.
Ouch! Try a more 'liberal' church. I'd reccomend the Quakers or a good URC.
I'd rather avoid participating in/supporting theology altogether.

Pascal's wager is not entirely flawed. The fact is that after being religious for a while Christianity is likely to grow on the atheist, I will admit it is a bad reason for being religious but after years of worship it is likely that after a little internal strife(most change comes with internal strife), the brainwash..er I mean conversion will be complete. As well really little is given up by being religious, after all, if all there is after death is oblivion why does it matter how you wasted your life?
no its not entirely flawed but...

what if youve picked the wrong religion? you could be reincarnated as a filthy housefly!

You are forgetting one very basic thing: Humans have the ability to choose. And that is the one thing that God cannot know, he cannot know which choices a person will make.

Wait... do wha-? Where do you get that? Verse(s) please..?

I'd like you to take this one step further, namely, to chapter 9 of Genesis. This is the part where God makes a rainbow and promises Noah that he will never destroy the creatures of the earth with a flood again. Perhaps there is some love in this story afterall. Next, taking a moment to understand your opponent's point of view in any debate is essential to doing well. It's something that a lot of professing Christians fail to do. I'm sorry we can't all be open minded, but at the same time, I'd be hard pressed to find someone who enjoys bashing Christians who has ever bothered to look at things from their point of view. That being said, I'd like you all to go do some 'homework' and understand what it is that you're talking about before trying to piss people off. Props to Romanore for some good arguments.

Some love, but is it enough?

I do try to see their angle. I fail, usually, but at least I try.

I have been doing my homework. In that I've taken a Religious Studies course in order to see the Christian viewpoint.

And also so that if I'm challenged, at least I know what I'm talking about.

For one it was a cultural law, not a universal. Cutural laws only applied to those specific people at that specific time or era. Universal laws apply to everyone at all times. Paul knew this as he wrote it, much like he knew that eating kosher meat was only applied to the Jews, as he told the Gentiles it was not necessary of them to apply that law to them.

Also, for the contexts of Corinthains 13:34-25, go here (http://www.christiancourier.com/notes/silentWomen.htm). You might find it interesting. :)
so now its OK to be gay? because we live in a different society and we realize that its human nature not perverse choice?

Therefore he is not all-knowing.
That is correct. He cannot know what choices a person or group will make, but he CAN know every single possibility that can result from those choices.

so now its OK to be gay? because we live in a different society and we realize that its human nature not perverse choice?

No. It was mentioned as being wrong both in the Old (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=leviticus%2018:22&version=9;) and New (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10;&version=31;) Testaments as being wrong. Note, however, that they mention the acting of homosexual deeds and not the thoughts of such. <speculation>It's my belief that God understood that we can't choose who we lust after, although He does wish us to understand that these lusts can be controlled.</speculation>

That is correct. He cannot know what choices a person or group will make, but he CAN know every single possibility that can result from those choices.

Again, scripture please?

Well, atheists have definitely picked the wrong religion no matter what. Besides, pick something monotheistic, I mean there has to be a reason those have been so successful. I mean there are 3 well known ones that are related, (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). So I guess the idea is pick the one that seems the best, go along with it and hopefully everything will end up well. If it doesn't end well, then what difference does it make? Little to nothing is lost by being religious and it is most certainly a better deal than the lottery.

Again, scripture please?

Sorry to quote you, but:

No. It was mentioned as being wrong both in the Old (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=leviticus%2018:22&version=9;) and New (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10;&version=31;) Testaments as being wrong. Note, however, that they mention the acting of homosexual deeds and not the thoughts of such. <speculation>It's my belief that God understood that we can't choose who we lust after, although He does wish us to understand that these lusts can be controlled.</speculation>

Scripture, please?

I don't have a bible handy, but I can give you a few examples.
There are two possibilities for the end, everybody repents and the world is spared (EXTEMELY unlikely, but possible) or it is neccessary for him to intervene. As it says there is more than one possibility, then he cannot know how people would choose for sure.

Well, atheists have definitely picked the wrong religion no matter what. Besides, pick something monotheistic, I mean there has to be a reason those have been so successful. I mean there are 3 well known ones that are related, (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). So I guess the idea is pick the one that seems the best, go along with it and hopefully everything will end up well. If it doesn't end well, then what difference does it make? Little to nothing is lost by being religious and it is most certainly a better deal than the lottery.

When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred.

Well, atheists have definitely picked the wrong religion no matter what. Besides, pick something monotheistic, I mean there has to be a reason those have been so successful. I mean there are 3 well known ones that are related, (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). So I guess the idea is pick the one that seems the best, go along with it and hopefully everything will end up well. If it doesn't end well, then what difference does it make? Little to nothing is lost by being religious and it is most certainly a better deal than the lottery.

The only thing wrong with this logic is that Christianity shouldn't be played as a "Get out of Hell free" card. Most fail to realize that it's the Holy Spirit that convicts the heart of man into accepting him and Christ (note: that's not the same thing as manipulates or forces). We can't just shrug our shoulders and pick eenie-meenie-miney-mo on Christianity, expecting to step into it with complete conviction and acceptance. Don't work that way. God convicts us and its then up to us whether or not to accept that conviction.

The only thing wrong with this logic is that Christianity shouldn't be played as a "Get out of Hell free" card. Most fail to realize that it's the Holy Spirit that convicts the heart of man into accepting him and Christ (note: that's not the same thing as manipulates or forces). We can't just shrug our shoulders and pick eenie-meenie-miney-mo on Christianity, expecting to step into it with complete conviction and acceptance. Don't work that way. God convicts us and its then up to us whether or not to accept that conviction.


I learned something today and that is that this guy is really smart

Well, atheists have definitely picked the wrong religion no matter what. Besides, pick something monotheistic, I mean there has to be a reason those have been so successful. I mean there are 3 well known ones that are related, (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). So I guess the idea is pick the one that seems the best, go along with it and hopefully everything will end up well. If it doesn't end well, then what difference does it make? Little to nothing is lost by being religious and it is most certainly a better deal than the lottery.
well now dont get to quick on us here. monotheistic religion has been very successful in the "west" ...those areas most influenced by jerusalem. for the most part except for the middle east closest to jerusalem and the lands of the mediterranian sea, monotheism was spread by forced conversion. this is especially true of the americas.

in the EAST polytheism has been more successful. india, china, japan. a couple billion people who are polytheists. religion mostly spread by word of mouth, not conquest.

Sorry to quote you, but:

Scripture, please?

No need to apologize. :)

But it's as I said--it's speculation. I can't back it up (at least to my current knowledge) with scripture. I draw the conclusion from those two I provided, as they mention only homosexual acts and not the state of homosexuality.

I don't have a bible handy, but I can give you a few examples.
There are two possibilities for the end, everybody repents and the world is spared (EXTEMELY unlikely, but possible) or it is neccessary for him to intervene. As it says there is more than one possibility, then he cannot know how people would choose for sure.

Well... let me show you a few scriptures to see where I'm coming from.

1 Samuel 2:3 "God is the God of knowledge. He knows everything." (Note: "Omniscient" means the state of knowing everything.)

1 Kings 8:39 "God knows a man's heart" (Also found in 1 Sam. 16:7; Acts 1:24; 15:8; Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor. 3:20)

1 Chronicles 28:9 "God searches the heart and understands all the intent of the thoughts."

and Matt. 10:29 "Nothing happens apart from God's will."

EDIT: Also, if you take Revelations to mean the end of times, you'll see that the end is already laid out. I won't go into specifics, but I merely wanted to point out that there is not an option, and instead the end is already displayed to us (and as some would argue, for us to interpret).

what? you have a problem with god killing everyone but noah and his family???

at least he didnt ask them where they were.


Now that is funny :)

The Noble Men....I think you have yet to be taught the concept of "rhetorical questioning".

I learned something today and that is that this guy is really smart

If that was indeed a compliment, I thank you for it. :)

*gives a cookie of friendship; rethinks it and gives a cookie of friendship to everyone*

If that was indeed a compliment, I thank you for it. :)

*gives a cookie of friendship; rethinks it and gives a cookie of friendship to everyone*
*Sends cookie to a lab for testing.* Oh, okay, no poison. *gobbles cheerily*

If that was indeed a compliment, I thank you for it. :)

*gives a cookie of friendship; rethinks it and gives a cookie of friendship to everyone*


:) I do hope it's sugar free :gundge: ;)

Romanore, I already responded to that idea saying that a religion practiced sufficiently over time will become part of ones nature. To a certain extent, Pascal's wager is a method for people without religion to brainwash themselves into becoming religious. As well I was offering my opinion on the matter, I tend to believe in only one God so of course I am going to promote beliefs similar to mine. I hope that answer is an adequate response.

:) I do hope it's sugar free :gundge: ;)

It's whatever you want it to be... so long as it isn't laced with anything... >.>

Yes, you heard me. It's a magic cookie! And with no ill side-effects! Yay!

The Noble Men....I think you have yet to be taught the concept of "rhetorical questioning".

Then teach me.

and Matt. 10:29 "Nothing happens apart from God's will."

What, God wanted Cain to kill Abel, then apologise for it, even though he had no say in the matter?

If that was indeed a compliment, I thank you for it. :)

*gives a cookie of friendship; rethinks it and gives a cookie of friendship to everyone*

Thanks.

What, God wanted Cain to kill Abel, then apologise for it, even though he had no say in the matter?


Actually, in context it's a lot different:


Matthew 10:27-31 27"Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. 28And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. 30But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

What, God wanted Cain to kill Abel, then apologise for it, even though he had no say in the matter?

You misunderstand what it means about God's will. It is God's will that evil should suffer for a little while yet. That's not to say that he wants evil to prosper. Far from it! There is a time and a place where evil will be brought forward, judged, and then purged from existance. However, this has yet to happen, and we need to understand that we are living in a time where God is preparing for such an event. Until then, evil will be.

God didn't want Cain to kill Abel. He did however, understand that evil would have an influence on Cain. While He hoped for Cain to not kill, he knew there would be no stop to it that would be fair to Cain.

It's simple really. God is supposed to know everything,assuming he exists (he doesn't). Past, present or future, God knows what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. So could someone explain Genesis 4:9 which reads:

"Afterward the Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother? Where is Abel?"

Now a God who knows everything has no reason to ask that question. He knows that Cain killed Abel.

Anyone got a reason that can't be frittered away?

Ever heard of a rhetorical question? If you haven't, that was one.

It's kind of juvenile to think that you can add something to a long-standing philosophical debate by nitpicking scripture.

Actually, in context it's a lot different:


Matthew 10:27-31 27"Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. 28And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. 30But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

You're right. I saw a bad translation to the verse and I apologize for it. Still, it comes about to basically mean the same thing. At least... that's what I see.

It's kind of juvenile to think that you can add something to a long-standing philosophical debate by nitpicking scripture.

I know it doesn't contribute in the long run, but I noticed the discrepancy and wanted an explination. Simple.

God didn't want Cain to kill Abel. He did however, understand that evil would have an influence on Cain. While He hoped for Cain to not kill, he knew there would be no stop to it that would be fair to Cain.

It's that whole "free will" thing again, isn't it?

Doesn't quite answer the orginal question, but it puts it in a different light.

It's that whole "free will" thing again, isn't it?

Doesn't quite answer the orginal question, but it puts it in a different light.

*blink* I didn't answer it? I must have went off on a tangent...

Anyway, no, God didn't want Cain to kill Abel. He wasn't pulling on any strings to get it done, if that's what you were asking. He did however (and I apologize if this is misunderstood) want evil to remain... for a time. He doesn't like evil, nor does he condone it, but He keeps it present until He is prepared to rid Him and us of it.

*blink* I didn't answer it? I must have went off on a tangent...

The original question was "why did God ask Cain where Abel was?".

The other question "did God want Cain to kill Abel?" has been answered.

You're right. I saw a bad translation to the verse and I apologize for it. Still, it comes about to basically mean the same thing. At least... that's what I see.


My personal view is that it means God will take care of you, and if you are to die then it is his will. Basically, do not fear men for they cannot kill the soul.

The original question was "why did God ask Cain where Abel was?".

The other question "did God want Cain to kill Abel?" has been answered.

Oh right. Sorry... >.>

(Now see what happens when we go off on a rabbit trail? :D)

In sum, God asked Cain where Abel was to give Cain the chance to admit his sin. He knew where Abel was and what Cain had done to him, but again there's that whole "Jimmy, did you break the vase?" schpeal going on.

My personal view is that it means God will take care of you, and if you are to die then it is his will. Basically, do not fear men for they cannot kill the soul.

That can also work. :p

*gives another cookie*

My personal view is that it means God will take care of you, and if you are to die then it is his will. Basically, do not fear men for they cannot kill the soul.

That would explain the whole "no organ transplant" thing, then.

But then again, maybe it's Gods' will you take the organs...

Nah, don't answer that.

It's that whole "free will" thing again, isn't it?


God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us

Oh right. Sorry... >.>

(Now see what happens when we go off on a rabbit trail? :D)

In sum, God asked Cain where Abel was to give Cain the chance to admit his sin. He knew where Abel was and what Cain had done to him, but again there's that whole "Jimmy, did you break the vase?" schpeal going on.

I belive that the whole Jimmy thing has been dealt with.

Hmm... did you break the vase?

The original question was "why did God ask Cain where Abel was?".

The other question "did God want Cain to kill Abel?" has been answered.
its a dramatic device in a story that started out in an oral tradition. when cain killed his brother in a fit of jealous anger he knew he did wrong. when god asks him where his brother is it reminds US of those times when WE did wrong and got called on it by our parents. after all, god does go on, after cain asks if he is his brothers keeper, to tell cain that the the blood of abel screams out from the ground. so its not like he doesnt say he knew.

I belive that the whole Jimmy thing has been dealt with.

Hmm... did you break the vase?

O.o; You found me out...

its a dramatic device in a story that started out in an oral tradition. when cain killed his brother in a fit of jealous anger he knew he did wrong. when god asks him where his brother is it reminds US of those times when WE did wrong and got called on it by our parents. after all, god does go on, after cain asks if he is his brothers keeper, to tell cain that the the blood of abel screams out from the ground. so its not like he doesnt say he knew.

Woosh. You got it. :)

Btw, congrats on the 5000+ posts.

Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams - they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do - they all contain truths.

Christianity is based on getting into heaven, hell, or purgatory based on what choices you make, right? And G/g od is supposed to know everything, right? For those who are seriously debating this topic, the following should prove very interesting, although I have no doubts that some people will already be aware of this argument.

A tricky issue is whether or not genuine omniscience is in any way compatible with free will - either ours or the alleged god's. To start with our free will, it has been observed many times that if a god knows the future with infallible certainty, then what this god knows will necessarily happen - there is no possibility for anything else to occur. We are, then, incapable of altering the future. Although the concept of human "free will" is hotly contested, I'm not aware of any theory of free will which could be conidered compatible with a being perfectly knowing the future. If a god knows who will win the next presidential election, then it isn't possible for anyone else to win. That's predestination - and some theologians have unflinchingly embraced it, for example John Calvin.

Others, however, have recognized that this is a tremendous problem and have sought to remedy it. A few try to argue that their god is "outside time," and hence sees the whole course of history all at once. But this removes god from the realm of intelligibility and knowability, and reduces theism to an incoherent agnosticism. Moreover, it doesn't ultimately solve the problem at hand: even if a god is simply sitting outside of time and observing the whole of history, then that means that only one course of history is possible - otherwise the picture for this god would keep shifting and it wouldn't have perfect knowledge of what happens. At best, it means that we are predestined without this god forcing it - but we are still predestined, just with an unintelligible god acting as an audience.

Still others reach for a more popular solution, namely to argue that their god has a "limited omniscience." This god knows everything, where everything means only what it can logically know. Everything doesn't really mean "everything" anymore - instead it means a limited but not yet defined set of things which will become more limited as more problems with the concept of omniscience are discovered.

Thus, certain realms of knowledge are closed to the supposedly "omniscient" god. We will revisit this again later, but from the outset it seems clear that a "limited omniscience" linguistically nonsensical. The word "limited" and the prefix "omni-" logically contradict each other. If a god is in any fashion limited in its knowledge, then it isn't really omniscient - and to say that it is becomes an exercise in confusion, if not deception.

Now what about this god's freedom? A legion of contradictions emerges when we consider a god which is both omniscient and possesses free will. Some theologians readily admit that the same problems as above exist here, but have yet to invent an adequate solution. For a god to be free in action, then its future must not be fully known in advance - there must be the possibility for a change of mind. If a god cannot freely alter its actions, then it cannot be said to be free. But this means that the god itself cannot perfectly know its own future. There must be true propositions about the future which it does not know.

In fact, it can be argued that this god cannot know anything at all about the future. Unlike the rest of us, such a god can always intervene in the course of human events and perform a miracle. We usually have to sit and allow nature to take its course - but this god doesn't. Yet for a miracle to be a free act, it cannot be known in advance. And if this god changes its mind, then we cannot say that it really did know in advance what would happen, much less know it perfectly.

For example, if a hurricane is approaching Orlando, poised to punish the city for it's tolerance of homosexuality, we simply have to sit and wait for it to hit. A traditional sort of god, however, has the choice to turn it away. If the decision to do so or to allow it to hit is to be free, this god cannot know for sure what it will do in advance. Since this god cannot know for sure if it will intervene, then it cannot know for sure if the hurricane really will hit. The same is true for every single event which this god can alter.

Since god cannot know in advance if and when it might perform any miracle, it cannot really know what will happen in any given situation. Once again some people reach and claim for their god a limited sort of omniscience, but I must raise the same objections that it makes no linguistic sense. So if a god is supposed to have both omniscience and free will, then it does not exist.

its a dramatic device in a story that started out in an oral tradition. when cain killed his brother in a fit of jealous anger he knew he did wrong. when god asks him where his brother is it reminds US of those times when WE did wrong and got called on it by our parents. after all, god does go on, after cain asks if he is his brothers keeper, to tell cain that the the blood of abel screams out from the ground. so its not like he doesnt say he knew.

That makes sense in a "the Bible has some truths, and some metaphors" context.

It's better than "tEH bIbLE IS ALL TRUE U M0R0N, UR GOIN 2 hELL!!! :headbang: :gundge: " sense, which never holds for long.

Man, writing that makes me feel dirty.

Why assume so glibly that the God who presumably created the universe is still running it? It is certainly perfectly conceivable that He may have finished it and then turned it over to lesser gods to operate. In the same way many human institutions are turned over to grossly inferior men. This is true, for example, of most universities, and of all great newspapers.

It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of gods. If such a board actually exists it operates precisely like the board of a corporation that is losing money.

--H. L. Mencken

Since god cannot know in advance if and when it might perform any miracle, it cannot really know what will happen in any given situation. Once again some people reach and claim for their god a limited sort of omniscience, but I must raise the same objections that it makes no linguistic sense. So if a god is supposed to have both omniscience and free will, then it does not exist.

Untrue. There is a very definitive line between predestination and predetermination. Predestination is simply God knowing what will happen. Predetermination is when God is pulling the strings to make something happen (seen largely in whether one is born "saved" or "unsaved"). Predestination happens. Predetermination doesn't.

When it comes to free will, I believe God has this as well, but limits Himself to what he will do. For instance, God told Abraham that he would destroy everyone in Sodom and Gamorrah, but Abraham changed his mind, allowing the single righteous family to escape. He was also going to wipe out the Israelites for their continual insolence and disobedience, but Moses convinced him otherwise.

I'm sure God knew he would have his mind changed, and that he would have spared a single Sodomite family and let the Hebrews continue to thrive, but it seemed that there was indeed a choice in there.

That makes sense in a "the Bible has some truths, and some metaphors" context.

It's better than "tEH bIbLE IS ALL TRUE U M0R0N, UR GOIN 2 hELL!!! :headbang: :gundge: " sense, which never holds for long.

Man, writing that makes me feel dirty.

Typing that would make me feel dirty... *shudders*

To quote my pastor, "The Bible is in some instances literal, some metaphorical, and in all cases Truth." I'll let you think about that. :)

To quote my pastor, "The Bible is in some instances literal, some metaphorical, and in all cases Truth." I'll let you think about that. :)

Probably the nicest viewpoint a Christian could have, really.

I mean, I don't mock your big bang theory that states everyrhing came from nothing, or how stupid your decision is to beleive in nothing.

The concept of god runs basically on the same idea due to the fact that god had to come from something, there had to be a beginning at some point and this beginning had to be started by something else so basically the question is if god created everything then who made god? He didnt just poof and show up in the middle of nothing and start making things. There had to be something before that, something that made the birth of god.

Hey, had fun chatting with you, but I've got to go now.

BYE!

The concept of god runs basically on the same idea due to the fact that god had to come from something, there had to be a beginning at some point and this beginning had to be started by something else so basically the question is if god created everything then who made god? He didnt just poof and show up in the middle of nothing and start making things. There had to be something before that, something that made the birth of god.

God always was. There was no beginning to Him. He is eternal in all aspects.

"I AM THAT I AM" [the name of the Lord] contains each tense of the verb "to be." We can translate it "I was, I am, I shall always continue to be." He is the eternal "I AM." He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He announced that Elohim is self-existent, beside whom there is none else. He is without beginning, without ending from everlasting to everlasting He is. Yahweh is the Absolute I. Acting with self-dependence, the Absolute God of the fathers, He is the divine Being moving, pervading history, manifesting Himself in the world. He is the self-determining One, Absolute independence, in harmony with Himself, remaining consistent, the absolute I, moving with unlimited freedom. He is the Absolute personality. He is the personal God in His historic manifestation unfolding (revealing) Himself. He is the God of redemption. By this name He is eternal, uncaused, unconditioned, independent and self-sufficient. As the God of grace He becomes whatever is needed to meet the needs of those who are His. He is "the Becoming One." There is the promise of continuing self-manifestation in His name, "I will be that I will be."

EDIT: By the way, the scriptures to this are Exodus 3:14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Exodus%203:14) and Revelation 1:8 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Rev+1:8). :)

Hey, had fun chatting with you, but I've got to go now.

BYE!

Yeah. Good debate so far. I hope to continue it later. :)

God always was. There was no beginning to Him. He is eternal in all aspects.

im not even gonna argue about this because everytime i start to think about this i either a) get a head ache b) get lost and confused or c) wait now what was c gonna be... o yeah i start to forget things... so screw this im just gonna try to go and not think about this no more

Untrue. There is a very definitive line between predestination and predetermination. Predestination is simply God knowing what will happen. Predetermination is when God is pulling the strings to make something happen (seen largely in whether one is born "saved" or "unsaved"). Predestination happens. Predetermination doesn't.

When it comes to free will, I believe God has this as well, but limits Himself to what he will do. For instance, God told Abraham that he would destroy everyone in Sodom and Gamorrah, but Abraham changed his mind, allowing the single righteous family to escape. He was also going to wipe out the Israelites for their continual insolence and disobedience, but Moses convinced him otherwise.

I'm sure God knew he would have his mind changed, and that he would have spared a single Sodomite family and let the Hebrews continue to thrive, but it seemed that there was indeed a choice in there.

Ok, let's strip this down to basics.

1/ To support a system where people get into heaven or hell based on the choices they make, you have to able to make choices, hence be possessed of free will.

2/ g/G od is supposed to know everything: past, present, and future (omniscience, from omnes, everything, and scientia, knowledge)

3/ However, if G/g od knows everything, then man does not have free will? Why? Either
- people are free to do as they will, and g/G od knows not what choices they will make, and hence what the future, resulting from these choices, will be.

- if G/g od does know the future, however, then this can only mean that h/H e knows what choices people will make, and they have no choice but to float along on this path of G/g od's all-knowing mind.

You end by stating that:
it seemed that there was indeed a choice in there.

Please, tell me where, because I genuinely do NOT see where. h/H e knew he would have H/h is mind changed, right? So what h/H e thought before that did not matter, because the changing of H/h is mind was certain.

And to finish: OR H/h er, or I/i t's...

im not even gonna argue about this because everytime i start to think about this i either a) get a head ache b) get lost and confused or c) wait now what was c gonna be... o yeah i start to forget things... so screw this im just gonna try to go and not think about this no more

Hehe. It's no fault of your own to be ashamed of. Heck, if I try to dwell on the vastness of God, I get head-splitting confusion in quantity. What I mainly try to do is just accept that God is by far superior to my finite mind and just realize that He is Good. Makes me feel a lot better afterwards. :p

"The Bible is in some instances literal, some metaphorical, and in all cases Truth."
I know I've heard that somewhere before... ahem. Anyway... I have seen this debate in many places on many forums, and neither side ever makes any headway. It's a pointless yet fun debate, because you're never going to convince either side you're correct, and there are so many opinions taken for fact. =] I'm mostly here to talk about free will, but I can't really say much that hasn't already been discussed here. (http://www.muffin-paradise.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1112&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)

Have fun reading. The first page is the only part about free will, then we get off into a dozen tangents. =]

Hehe. It's no fault of your own to be ashamed of. Heck, if I try to dwell on the vastness of God, I get head-splitting confusion in quantity. What I mainly try to do is just accept that God is by far superior to my finite mind and just realize that He is Good. Makes me feel a lot better afterwards. :p

yeah im too young to bust my brain over this so ill try again in like 20 years and see where it gets me

It's whatever you want it to be... so long as it isn't laced with anything... >.>

Yes, you heard me. It's a magic cookie! And with no ill side-effects! Yay!


Sweet ^_^ *talks to his cookie*

Ok, let's strip this down to basics.

1/ To support a system where people get into heaven or hell based on the choices they make, you have to able to make choices, hence be possessed of free will.

2/ g/G od is supposed to know everything: past, present, and future (omniscience, from omnes, everything, and scientia, knowledge)

3/ However, if G/g od knows everything, then man does not have free will? Why? Either
- people are free to do as they will, and g/G od knows not what choices they will make, and hence what the future, resulting from these choices, will be.

- if G/g od does know the future, however, then this can only mean that h/H e knows what choices people will make, and they have no choice but to float along on this path of G/g od's all-knowing mind.

You end by stating that:


Please, tell me where, because I genuinely do NOT see where. h/H e knew he would have H/h is mind changed, right? So what h/H e thought before that did not matter, because the changing of H/h is mind was certain.

And to finish: OR H/h er, or I/i t's...
lol good finish!

first of all, what is a paradox to US may not be a paradox to god, god isnt bound by the limits of our logic.

but, god knowing what you will do doesnt mean you dont choose it. it just means he chose not to stop you.

for example, i know that if i let my cat outside, she will kill birds. does my knowing have any effect on her hunting? no. she does what she does. unlike god, i choose to not let her go outside to hunt so she doesnt really have free will over killing birds.

so god lets us do what we will do even though he knows how it will all turn out.

Ok, let's strip this down to basics.

1/ To support a system where people get into heaven or hell based on the choices they make, you have to able to make choices, hence be possessed of free will.

True there.

2/ g/G od is supposed to know everything: past, present, and future (omniscience, from omnes, everything, and scientia, knowledge)

Again, true.

3/ However, if G/g od knows everything, then man does not have free will? Why? Either
- people are free to do as they will, and g/G od knows not what choices they will make, and hence what the future, resulting from these choices, will be.

- if G/g od does know the future, however, then this can only mean that h/H e knows what choices people will make, and they have no choice but to float along on this path of G/g od's all-knowing mind.

God knows everything, but I don't see why that should keep us from having free will. Just because He knows what will happen doesn't mean we still don't have a choice to make. We make choices. He just knows what it is we'll make before we make it. There's no detriment to free will there. Again, He's pulling no strings as we go along just because He knows what will happen.

Please, tell me where, because I genuinely do NOT see where. h/H e knew he would have H/h is mind changed, right? So what h/H e thought before that did not matter, because the changing of H/h is mind was certain.

And to finish: OR H/h er, or I/i t's...

Perhaps true. I don't deny that this is certainly a very complex issue. I probably don't understand even half of it. If so, I'm certain I'd even surpass King Solomon in his wisdom. :D But regardless, He does have a choice in what He does. He's not limited to a vertical line of time--or even bound by time period. Without that barrier, who's to say how He makes His choices...or even when? I'm sure it's no less confusing to know that He is dwelling in all moments right now--from the very Beginning of time through the very End.

We're finite in our capability to understand how an infinite God works. However, it is a very nice assurance to know that He chooses to love us, as He chose to sacrifice Himself for our sins. There was free will in that.

Hehe. It's no fault of your own to be ashamed of. Heck, if I try to dwell on the vastness of God, I get head-splitting confusion in quantity. What I mainly try to do is just accept that God is by far superior to my finite mind and just realize that He is Good. Makes me feel a lot better afterwards. :pWhy thank you.



Oh wait... <_< >_>... ;)

Why thank you.



Oh wait... <_< >_>... ;)

You're most definately welcome. :D

*cookie!*

You're most definately welcome. :D

*cookie!*Well, some people in this universe are polite at least...


Oh wait, don't tell me that was sarcastic.

(And if I may stoop to the level of corporeal beings, :fluffle: for the cookie. I just love cookies! :D)

Well, some people in this universe are polite at least...


Oh wait, don't tell me that was sarcastic.

(And if I may stoop to the level of corporeal beings, :fluffle: for the cookie. I just love cookies! :D)

It was good sarcasm... if that makes sense. >.> No detriment to you at all.

And thanks for the :fluffle:. Had I known that I'd get those, I would have given out more cookies. :D ;)

It's simple really. God is supposed to know everything,assuming he exists (he doesn't). Past, present or future, God knows what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. So could someone explain Genesis 4:9 which reads:

"Afterward the Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother? Where is Abel?"

Now a God who knows everything has no reason to ask that question. He knows that Cain killed Abel.

Anyone got a reason that can't be frittered away?

What are you doing? Your deception has brought down the ignorant ones.


Genesis 4:9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?"
10 And He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground.
11 "So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
12 "When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth."
13 And Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear!
14 "Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me."
15 And the LORD said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.
16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.

As for me I feel secure now that whatever I do, God knows what I am going to do. I have a future and a set time of death. It is good to know He is in control and not some other fallen man like yourself on this earth. It's good to pray to someone who knows me, my past and my future.

Romanore you have read this, yet you decided to filter out the whole story to concentrate on the question.

God (according to the Bible) does know everything. But choses to let us choose the choices that we see as correct. So in reality for every question their could be a zillion answers (that is a lot of future events).

Also are minds (the human brain) cannot fathom the understanding of one as great a Gods (according to the Bible). And in the end their is only 2 things. Their IS or isn't a god. And we won't know until we die and experience first handed. :cool:

God (according to the Bible) does know everything. But choses to let us choose the choices that we see as correct. So in reality for every question their could be a zillion answers (that is a lot of future events).

Also are minds (the human brain) cannot fathom the understanding of one as great a Gods (according to the Bible). And in the end their is only 2 things. Their IS or isn't a god. And we won't know until we die and experience first handed. :cool:

:)

Kudos in your explanation. And welcome to the NationStates forums! I hope we don't scare you off (too quickly). ;)

lol good finish!

first of all, what is a paradox to US may not be a paradox to god, god isnt bound by the limits of our logic.

but, god knowing what you will do doesnt mean you dont choose it. it just means he chose not to stop you.

for example, i know that if i let my cat outside, she will kill birds. does my knowing have any effect on her hunting? no. she does what she does. unlike god, i choose to not let her go outside to hunt so she doesnt really have free will over killing birds.

so god lets us do what we will do even though he knows how it will all turn out.

Could not agree more. While I am certain that atm I seem to be fiercely defending this theory, I am merely discussing it. I am an agnostic to the core, truly believing that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. I like discussing like this, and that is why I do it, but I personally belief that G/g od, among many things, is simply beyong our capability to understand; even more, it's silly to worry about it, or even try and grasp it, because you can't. Discuss like this all you want, I do it too, but keep in mind at all times that you are merely amusing or pissing off yourself/other people, and NOT speaking the 'truth', because absolute truth is an impossibility, or, in any case, impossible to comprehend. Live your life, and enjoy it... when you die, well, we'll see what happens then, won't we?

Now, onto this one:
but, god knowing what you will do doesnt mean you dont choose it. it just means he chose not to stop you.

Now this seems interesting... Consider this:
1/Man DOES have free will
2/g/G od DOES know everything we will do, but chooses not to interfere

This can only have one consequence, now can it?
3/ G/g DOES NOT have free will

Why? Because h/H e knows what the future, resulting from our choices, based on our free will, will be. Hence, H/h e can not interfere, because the second h/H e does, our choice is reduced to nothing because of divine interference. So, not only will H/h e not interfere, h/H e can't. It's our free will, H/h is free will, or h/H is omniscience. ONE of them has to go.

Could not agree more. While I am certain that atm I seem to be fiercely defending this theory, I am merely discussing it. I am an agnostic to the core, truly believing that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. I like discussing like this, and that is why I do it, but I personally belief that G/g od, among many things, is simply beyong our capability to understand; even more, it's silly to worry about it, or even try and grasp it, because you can't. Discuss like this all you want, I do it too, but keep in mind at all times that you are merely amusing or pissing off yourself/other people, and NOT speaking the 'truth', because absolute truth is an impossibility, or, in any case, impossible to comprehend. Live your life, and enjoy it... when you die, well, we'll see what happens then, won't we?

Now, onto this one:


Now this seems interesting... Consider this:
1/Man DOES have free will
2/g/G od DOES know everything we will do, but chooses not to interfere

This can only have one consequence, now can it?
3/ G/g DOES NOT have free will

Why? Because h/H e knows what the future, resulting from our choices, based on our free will, will be. Hence, H/h e can not interfere, because the second h/H e does, our choice is reduced to nothing because of divine interference. So, not only will H/h e not interfere, h/H e can't. It's our free will, H/h is free will, or h/H is omniscience. ONE of them has to go.
i dont think it follows that because he doesnt, he cant

besides isnt that what miracles are? when god changes the rules of the universe for someone? the sun stands still in the sky so joshua can win at jericho, jonah lives 3 days in the belly of a whale, jesus raises lazarus from the dead. these are instances of god exercising HIS free will to influence the outcome of events.

i dont think it follows that because he doesnt, he cant

besides isnt that what miracles are? when god changes the rules of the universe for someone? the sun stands still in the sky so joshua can win at jericho, jonah lives 3 days in the belly of a whale, jesus raises lazarus from the dead. these are instances of god exercising HIS free will to influence the outcome of events.

And, in doing so, overriding that of man.

And, in doing so, overriding that of man.

Not entirely so. His work of miracles helps influence the choice of man, but it does not make it for him, nor does it force him into one.

Not entirely so. His work of miracles helps influence the choice of man, but it does not make it for him, nor does it force him into one.
so then basically we're just here to entertain

God technically has free will I think at the very least. The decision never to do something does not mean that one lacks free will, otherwise people with morality are robots and only psychopaths have free will. To a certain extent knowing better limits ones actions, it is sort of interesting to think that knowledge can decrease one's free will as knowledge increases.

so then basically we're just here to entertain

Entertain? Goodness no. We were created to be a perfect companion to God. To honor and love Him for who He is.

However, having someone choose to love you is a lot more real and more healthy than forced love. Thus the free will. He made us with a purpose, but gave us a chance, out of fairness, to not follow that purpose.

EDIT: Not to mention that He created someone He could love in return.

And, in doing so, overriding that of man.
can you think of a miracle that involved forcibly changing a persons mind? there arent any that come to mind. even striking saul blind on the road to damascus are more extortion than mind control. there may be one, i just cant think of one.

maybe there is a thing where he hardened or softened someones heart?

can you think of a miracle that involved forcibly changing a persons mind? there arent any that come to mind. even striking saul blind on the road to damascus are more extortion than mind control. there may be one, i just cant think of one.

maybe there is a thing where he hardened or softened someones heart?

You could take in the nine plagues to follow your example. Eight plagues and Pharoah still remained unconvinced to let the Hebrews go. The ninth, mainly the death of his son, convicted him of his wrongdoing and he relented. It didn't force him into making the choice, but it sure did show him who was Boss...

can you think of a miracle that involved forcibly changing a persons mind? there arent any that come to mind. even striking saul blind on the road to damascus are more extortion than mind control. there may be one, i just cant think of one.

maybe there is a thing where he hardened or softened someones heart?

Forcibly changing a person's mind... Well, the way I see it, it would be pretty idiotic for H/h im to go about snapping h/H is fingers and saying: 'No, you will not make cherry cake tonight, you will make apple cake!' ;) But anyhew. If H/h e wants to change a person's mind, then h/H e will simply alter the situations in which that person is to make his decision. Decision-making is not undetached. Our desicions are based on the circumstances presenting themselves. Do I cross that field (nice field with wild flowers and birds) or not? G/g od doesn't want you to cross it so...

1/ *Forcibly changes your mind so you don't want to cross it anymore*
2/ *Changes the field into a puddle of lava with a dragon swimming through it...* 'Oh, but you can still cross it if you want to, it your choice, you've got free will' Yeah right...

What's the difference?

I'm not saying we our g/G od don't have free will. I'm saying both of these 'free wills' can not exist at the same time. Divine interference, mind-altering or not, means stepping over people's desicions and replacing them with those of G/g od.

Forcibly changing a person's mind... Well, the way I see it, it would be pretty idiotic for H/h im to go about snapping h/H is fingers and saying: 'No, you will not make cherry cake tonight, you will make apple cake!' ;) But anyhew. If H/h e wants to change a person's mind, then h/H e will simply alter the situations in which that person is to make his decision. Decision-making is not undetached. Our desicions are based on the circumstances presenting themselves. Do I cross that field (nice field with wild flowers and birds) or not? G/g od doesn't want you to cross it so...

1/ *Forcibly changes your mind so you don't want to cross it anymore*
2/ *Changes the field into a puddle of lava with a dragon swimming through it...* 'Oh, but you can still cross it if you want to, it your choice, you've got free will' Yeah right...

What's the difference?

I'm not saying we our g/G od don't have free will. I'm saying both of these 'free wills' can not exist at the same time. Divine interference, mind-altering or not, means stepping over people's desicions and replacing them with those of G/g od.
thats why miracles are few and far between, if god messed with the universe all the time we'd be really sick of it.

the rest of the time he leaves us to our own devices

The Answer is Simple

God asks to see if he's going to tell the truth of not

thats why miracles are few and far between, if god messed with the universe all the time we'd be really sick of it.

the rest of the time he leaves us to our own devices

However, who is to say what the consequenses of a single, seemingly inconsequential desicion are? Who is to say WWIII will not indirectly be the consequence of G/g od making a 17th century-Frenchman blow his nose? I KNOW it may seem like I am, atm, not taking this discussion serious anymore, but rest assured that I am. Ok, other example: what if g/G od had let the Jews croak? What about WWII?

It's simple really. God is supposed to know everything,assuming he exists (he doesn't). Past, present or future, God knows what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. So could someone explain Genesis 4:9 which reads:

"Afterward the Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother? Where is Abel?"

Now a God who knows everything has no reason to ask that question. He knows that Cain killed Abel.

Anyone got a reason that can't be frittered away?
You might also include the issue in the beginning of Job, where "Satan" supposedly approaches "God" and asks "him" of Job, and what a faithful servant he was and how his faith couldn't be shaken ... "God" was like, "Who? Whazzat? Whachu talkin' bout, Willis?"
Seems that "God" is very easily distracted, what with running the universe and all that ... certainly the perils and bemusements of man are lowly matters. Oh wait, everything we feel about subimission and servitude is important? Woe is me! *shudder* :rolleyes:

The Answer is Simple

God asks to see if he's going to tell the truth of not
This actually proves the threadposter's point. Exactly. "God" doesn't apparently know what's in this guy's heart. Think about it a second.

...another interpretation could be that this "god" likes to play little f*cked-up mind games with its lessers. Bastion of maturity, reason ... and faith, don't you think? To play games of the heart and soul?

thats why miracles are few and far between, if god messed with the universe all the time we'd be really sick of it.

the rest of the time he leaves us to our own devices
You know, since we don't really know the parameters of the universe, that very thing could be happening all the time and we wouldn't be any wiser for it. You are aware of course how much of the spectrum of EM is perceivable to us at this point, right, for example?

However, who is to say what the consequenses of a single, seemingly inconsequential desicion are? Who is to say WWIII will not indirectly be the consequence of G/g od making a 17th century-Frenchman blow his nose? I KNOW it may seem like I am, atm, not taking this discussion serious anymore, but rest assured that I am. Ok, other example: what if g/G od had let the Jews croak? What about WWII?
not to be facile but GOD DOES

if god decides that that car isnt going to hit winston churchill as he crosses the street, he knows the ramifications for the prime minister he will later become.

one assumes (if one is religious) that god performs "miracles" (things that defy the laws of nature) for a reason and that he knows and WANTS the outcomes that the miracles enable.

Entertain? Goodness no. We were created to be a perfect companion to God. To honor and love Him for who He is.

However, having someone choose to love you is a lot more real and more healthy than forced love. Thus the free will. He made us with a purpose, but gave us a chance, out of fairness, to not follow that purpose.

EDIT: Not to mention that He created someone He could love in return.
Well your first point i have to take issue with. A perfect companion, be there any such thing, would have to have some kind of equitable characteristics to substantiate that. Either as an inverse nature, or as an equitable as i'd said in faculty. Certainly you aren't saying we havve as much faculty as "God" in some areas as to make us a perfect companion? Otherwise, you might actually mean "pet" in the stead of term "companion". Besides what kind of creature blights its perfect companions with suffering and misery by not seeing things the same way? Far more human than god methinks. Case in point, read Genesis (again?) carefully - as per the reasons for/making of Eve, and the curse of childbirth, and think carefully about your rationale.
I more agree with your second sentence in this post, but it unfortunately tends to fall outside the boundaries of understanding of "biblical" "god".
*sigh*

You know, since we don't really know the parameters of the universe, that very thing could be happening all the time and we wouldn't be any wiser for it. You are aware of course how much of the spectrum of EM is perceivable to us at this point, right, for example?
true, for all WE know we are just a constructs in the mind of god no more "real" than that porn star you were fantasizing about last night. it just not "religiously correct" in my opinion. im not a calvinist.

well OK im an atheist catholic but that doesnt make and difference does it?

Well your first point i have to take issue with. A perfect companion, be there any such thing, would have to have some kind of equitable characteristics to substantiate that. Either as an inverse nature, or as an equitable as i'd said in faculty. Certainly you aren't saying we havve as much faculty as "God" in some areas as to make us a perfect companion? Otherwise, you might actually mean "pet" in the stead of term "companion". Besides what kind of creature blights its perfect companions with suffering and misery by not seeing things the same way? Far more human than god methinks. Case in point, read Genesis (again?) carefully - as per the reasons for/making of Eve, and the curse of childbirth, and think carefully about your rationale.
I more agree with your second sentence in this post, but it unfortunately tends to fall outside the boundaries of understanding of "biblical" "god".
*sigh*
we now call pets "companion animals"

we cant be god's pets?

not to be facile but GOD DOES

if god decides that that car isnt going to hit winston churchill as he crosses the street, he knows the ramifications for the prime minister he will later become.

one assumes (if one is religious) that god performs "miracles" (things that defy the laws of nature) for a reason and that he knows and WANTS the outcomes that the miracles enable.

You are basically confirming what I said. G/g od wants what will happen if the miracle is performed, and performs the miracle. If the miracle has a direct consequence, h/H e just radically blocked man's free will (made the sniper's bullet miss, so the sniper's desicion to shoot Elton John is overridden by divine intervention); if the miracle did not have a direct consequence, H/h e altered the circumstances in which later desicions would have to be made, and, probably, their outcome as well.

EDIT: Gonna work for school now; should've been at least two hours ago. I'll stay online and check up now and then, and if I don't see you again, nice chatting with you, and hopefully 'till tomorrow.

true, for all WE know we are just a constructs in the mind of god no more "real" than that porn star you were fantasizing about last night. it just not "religiously correct" in my opinion. im not a calvinist.

well OK im an atheist catholic but that doesnt make and difference does it?
Porn star? which one? Are you offering services? ;)
Certainly that's a little sophomoric response that wasn't very heartfelt, so we can both laugh about it.
It depends on what you do with your faith, i guess/

Well your first point i have to take issue with. A perfect companion, be there any such thing, would have to have some kind of equitable characteristics to substantiate that. Either as an inverse nature, or as an equitable as i'd said in faculty. Certainly you aren't saying we havve as much faculty as "God" in some areas as to make us a perfect companion? Otherwise, you might actually mean "pet" in the stead of term "companion". Besides what kind of creature blights its perfect companions with suffering and misery by not seeing things the same way? Far more human than god methinks. Case in point, read Genesis (again?) carefully - as per the reasons for/making of Eve, and the curse of childbirth, and think carefully about your rationale.
I more agree with your second sentence in this post, but it unfortunately tends to fall outside the boundaries of understanding of "biblical" "god".
*sigh*

We were created in God's image--without blemish and without sin. That is perfection. But, through our free will and through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we were allowed the chance to step away from perfection into imperfection. Else it would not have been fair to us--no choice meant no practice of free will.

God made Eve as a companion to Adam as God made Adam as a companion to Himself. "Companion" does not insinuate "pet", mind you. Adam saw that each animal he had named was paired off with another of its kind and found that he had no similar partner, so God made Eve for him in order to make such a pairing.

Also, how does my second paragraph fall outside of scripture? As I said, we were made perfect and given free will in order to choose and accept God's love, loving Him in return. It was through this free will however, that we were allowed an opportunity to step out of this love and into darkness. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the metaphorical symbol of this, as Adam and Eve disobeyed God and brought sin and death (and imperfection) into their lives.

Porn star? which one? Are you offering services? ;)
Certainly that's a little sophomoric response that wasn't very heartfelt, so we can both laugh about it.
It depends on what you do with your faith, i guess/
my point was the part about just existing in the mind of god. if you want to contend that you never daydream, fine. but surely you might understand the concept of people and things that only exist in your own mind? the only thing one can be "sure" of is that humans fantasize about sex. hence the porn star.

ok?

You are basically confirming what I said. G/g od wants what will happen if the miracle is performed, and performs the miracle. If the miracle has a direct consequence, h/H e just radically blocked man's free will (made the sniper's bullet miss, so the sniper's desicion to shoot Elton John is overridden by divine intervention); if the miracle did not have a direct consequence, H/h e altered the circumstances in which later desicions would have to be made, and, probably, their outcome as well.

EDIT: Gonna work for school now; should've been at least two hours ago. I'll stay online and check up now and then, and if I don't see you again, nice chatting with you, and hopefully 'till tomorrow.
i see where your problem is there, but i dont see that it negates free will. it certainly messes with the fabric of the universe. the dead guy doesnt stay dead. the barrel of water is suddenly wine. bears appear to kill the children who mocked the prophet. but the sniper still made the same decision. maybe the "miracle of missing" might change his mind about the sin he intends to commit...

"true miracles" occur so rarely and so seemingly randomly that its hard to figure what the point of them is outside of some kind of supernatural grandstanding. from time to time god tries to get a certain person's attention and he uses miracles to get it. THEY decide how to react to it.

It's simple really. God is supposed to know everything,assuming he exists (he doesn't). Past, present or future, God knows what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. So could someone explain Genesis 4:9 which reads:

"Afterward the Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother? Where is Abel?"

Now a God who knows everything has no reason to ask that question. He knows that Cain killed Abel.

Anyone got a reason that can't be frittered away?

You obviously haven't got children/young siblings. God was trying to get Cain to confess himself.

We were created in God's image--without blemish and without sin. That is perfection. But, through our free will and through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we were allowed the chance to step away from perfection into imperfection. Else it would not have been fair to us--no choice meant no practice of free will.

God made Eve as a companion to Adam as God made Adam as a companion to Himself. "Companion" does not insinuate "pet", mind you. Adam saw that each animal he had named was paired off with another of its kind and found that he had no similar partner, so God made Eve for him in order to make such a pairing.

Also, how does my second paragraph fall outside of scripture? As I said, we were made perfect and given free will in order to choose and accept God's love, loving Him in return. It was through this free will however, that we were allowed an opportunity to step out of this love and into darkness. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the metaphorical symbol of this, as Adam and Eve disobeyed God and brought sin and death (and imperfection) into their lives.
As far as the first two paragraphs here, not much to argue (per material) but you're not including what loneliness Adam expressed which resulted in the date-rape and excision of rib, resulting in Eve. Not perfection, not companion, what sharing did "god" express after Eve? And still, to explain the curse of childbirth?

EDIT - also many have apparently misinterpreted the term "image". Think "imagination". Think of brainscans of neurological activity.

my point was the part about just existing in the mind of god. if you want to contend that you never daydream, fine. but surely you might understand the concept of people and things that only exist in your own mind? the only thing one can be "sure" of is that humans fantasize about sex. hence the porn star.

ok?
Ok, i hadn't the inkling you were angling that way with it. Fair 'nuff. Although, i would add that people also fantasize about being things they aren't - a disproportionate sense of self.

We were created in God's image--without blemish and without sin. That is perfection. But, through our free will and through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we were allowed the chance to step away from perfection into imperfection. Else it would not have been fair to us--no choice meant no practice of free will.

<snippolino>

Also, how does my second paragraph fall outside of scripture? As I said, we were made perfect and given free will in order to choose and accept God's love, loving Him in return. It was through this free will however, that we were allowed an opportunity to step out of this love and into darkness. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the metaphorical symbol of this, as Adam and Eve disobeyed God and brought sin and death (and imperfection) into their lives.

This all sounds fine and good until you attempt to integrate a doctrine of eternal torture in Hell. If YHWH really wanted us to be "free" to choose to love him or not, why the gratuitous brutality? Let's say I'm a king, and there's a girl I like who lives down the street from my palace. I go to her and tell her I'd like to have a nice, loving relationship with her, and propose marriage. I reassure her that I respect her free will. However, if she refuses to marry me, then I will have her burned at the stake and roast marshmallows in the flames.

Am I really respecting her free will, and giving her a "choice" whether to love me or not? Isn't the idea of *commanding* love and extorting it with threats of torture self-contradictory? And, since YHWH is more than willing to engage in coercion of "free will" to get what he wants, this is proof he's not omnipotent. Obviously, if you're trying to coerce someone, you don't want them to have free will, you want them to obey you. And, if you have to resort to threats of torture, you don't have access to a more finessed method, like pressing a button on a remote control.

IOW, the fact that YHWH needs to bribe (Heaven!) and threaten (HELL!) to get love means he lacks the power to flip a switch on the armrest of his throne and have us all singing hosannas.

Furthermore, this is proof that he isn't self-sufficient, as much as his Official Spokesmen (the writers of whichever Holy Book you believe is the True one) may like to claim. If you refuse to give him love and worhship, he acts very much like a cornered animal whose survival is threatened. He puffs himself up (FEAR ME, THE MIGHTY OZ!) and lashes out with whatever force he can muster, either threats of Divine Wrath, or that of the people he controls (Inquisitions, Crusades, Holocausts as in Joshua, Judges, etc.).

Why should this be so? It doesn't fit with the concept of the super-cosmic Infinite Supreme Being. Such a creature, if it existed, could hardly be affected one way or the other by whether a bunch of hairless primates on a single tiny planet decide to worship it, engage in or refrain from certain sexual behaviors, etc. The Infinite Supreme Being would be just as Infinite and Supreme if no being anywhere, in all the galaxies, decided to worship it. It would probably be mature enough not even to desire the groveling of vastly inferior beings. It would certainly have no reason to turn savagely violent if some little old lady decides to wear a crystal around her neck, worship Goddess, and buy some Silver Ravenwolf books on Wicca.

It does, IMO, fit a model (theory) of "gods" as software intelligences that need access to human brain hardware in order to survive and act in the world. Think of one of those "secondary personalities" in someone with Multiple Personality Disorder. Now, imagine that this persona developed a way to transfer itself from its current host to others. This would grant it a kind of immortality, and vastly greater poweer than it could have confined to one single brain.

How does it transfer itself? In the case of YHWH, it has its archetypal nature (the Sky Father/King), essential personality attributes, commandments, etc. written down in a book, often in the form of stories that are memorable and enable new hosts to form a mental image, i.e. a copy, of the YHWH persona. This is why Bible reading is so important in Christianity. It is repeated installations of the YHWH software, which strengthens and solidifies teh YHWH persona in the new host.

"In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

So, when a Christian has an ethical decision to make, and she looks at her What Would Jesus Do bracelet, she "turns on" her "Jesus program" (her mental "copy" of the Jesus persona as she understands it), lets it have access to the hardware of her brain, and lets it make the decision for her.

This explains why YHWH/Jesus is so ferocious when it comes to people refusing to worship him, i.e. copy his software into their heads and let it take over as the dominant persona. Without hosts, he dies.

This all sounds fine and good until you attempt to integrate a doctrine of eternal torture in Hell. If YHWH really wanted us to be "free" to choose to love him or not, why the gratuitous brutality? Let's say I'm a king, and there's a girl I like who lives down the street from my palace. I go to her and tell her I'd like to have a nice, loving relationship with her, and propose marriage. I reassure her that I respect her free will. However, if she refuses to marry me, then I will have her burned at the stake and roast marshmallows in the flames.

Am I really respecting her free will, and giving her a "choice" whether to love me or not? Isn't the idea of *commanding* love and extorting it with threats of torture self-contradictory? And, since YHWH is more than willing to engage in coercion of "free will" to get what he wants, this is proof he's not omnipotent. Obviously, if you're trying to coerce someone, you don't want them to have free will, you want them to obey you. And, if you have to resort to threats of torture, you don't have access to a more finessed method, like pressing a button on a remote control.

IOW, the fact that YHWH needs to bribe (Heaven!) and threaten (HELL!) to get love means he lacks the power to flip a switch on the armrest of his throne and have us all singing hosannas.

Furthermore, this is proof that he isn't self-sufficient, as much as his Official Spokesmen (the writers of whichever Holy Book you believe is the True one) may like to claim. If you refuse to give him love and worhship, he acts very much like a cornered animal whose survival is threatened. He puffs himself up (FEAR ME, THE MIGHTY OZ!) and lashes out with whatever force he can muster, either threats of Divine Wrath, or that of the people he controls (Inquisitions, Crusades, Holocausts as in Joshua, Judges, etc.).

Why should this be so? It doesn't fit with the concept of the super-cosmic Infinite Supreme Being. Such a creature, if it existed, could hardly be affected one way or the other by whether a bunch of hairless primates on a single tiny planet decide to worship it, engage in or refrain from certain sexual behaviors, etc. The Infinite Supreme Being would be just as Infinite and Supreme if no being anywhere, in all the galaxies, decided to worship it. It would probably be mature enough not even to desire the groveling of vastly inferior beings. It would certainly have no reason to turn savagely violent if some little old lady decides to wear a crystal around her neck, worship Goddess, and buy some Silver Ravenwolf books on Wicca.

It does, IMO, fit a model (theory) of "gods" as software intelligences that need access to human brain hardware in order to survive and act in the world. Think of one of those "secondary personalities" in someone with Multiple Personality Disorder. Now, imagine that this persona developed a way to transfer itself from its current host to others. This would grant it a kind of immortality, and vastly greater poweer than it could have confined to one single brain.

How does it transfer itself? In the case of YHWH, it has its archetypal nature (the Sky Father/King), essential personality attributes, commandments, etc. written down in a book, often in the form of stories that are memorable and enable new hosts to form a mental image, i.e. a copy, of the YHWH persona. This is why Bible reading is so important in Christianity. It is repeated installations of the YHWH software, which strengthens and solidifies teh YHWH persona in the new host.

"In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

So, when a Christian has an ethical decision to make, and she looks at her What Would Jesus Do bracelet, she "turns on" her "Jesus program" (her mental "copy" of the Jesus persona as she understands it), lets it have access to the hardware of her brain, and lets it make the decision for her.

This explains why YHWH/Jesus is so ferocious when it comes to people refusing to worship him, i.e. copy his software into their heads and let it take over as the dominant persona. Without hosts, he dies.

I pretty much answered most of your question about God, evil and punishment in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425759&page=16&pp=15) thread, if you care to read it. If not, in sum:

Sin requires accountance and attonement. The original Sin is also passed from father to child. Why? Because imperfection cannot make perfection. As much as God would love to see us perfect, He cannot go around His Justice and take away sin without due punishment for it, and the punishment/attonement for sin is death. That's why he gave the Hebrews the chance to attone for sins through sacrifice, a replacement for their own deaths. However, the blood of animals could not permanently attone. If they sinned again, there would once again be the need for attonement.

This is part of why the Christ came. He, perfect from birth (as he was not born of a father--again, they pass the sin, not the mother), thus the perfect sacrifice. Not only did his death and resurrection attone for the sins we already had, but also all future sins we commit. That was his way of giving back perfection. He gives us the chance step back into His presence, thus live forever, and still remains Just. Sin was accounted for through Christ's sacrifice, fulfilling his justice.

To specifically answer your question, living forever can equate to living with God. (I already discussed the nature of sin.) They only way to live forever is to live with God. The only way to live with God is to be sinless, allowing us to step back into His presence. And the only way to be sinless is to accept the ultimate sacrifice for our sakes, which was and is Jesus Christ, and acknowledge him as your Lord and Savior. As He himself has said in John 14:6, "No one can come to the Father except through me."

And here...


Adam's fall didn't only affect the entire human race. I cannot remember who it was who said this (kudos to you, whoever you are), but someone commented that the Original Sin was a Pandora's Box, opening the corruption of sin into the very nature of the world we live in. Because of their choice, sin was let in, imperfecting a perfect world and destroying what was meant to be eternal. God, of course, did not want this to happen. He didn't want Adam and Eve to dwell in sin, nor did he want their descendents to be affected by the choice of their parents. However, that's the nature of sin. And the nature of justice requires that sin be attoned for. Since it had effected anything and everything, God found it then absolutely necessary to purge the now imperfect world.

However, God, also being compassionate and loving, did not want to see all of manking fall to his Holy and Just wrath. This is why he is allowing us a chance to step out of this muck and back into his presence before all the world is destroyed at the end of times (No, it's not the Apocalypse, as some would have you believe--it's actually quite a while afterwards). However, he is doing it in the legal and just way. He can't, in his Holy Nature, allow us, creatures affected by and dwelling in sin, to get around attonement scott free without some sacrifice of sin of our own. Once we accept Christ, we are also admitting that we are victims of sin, thus allowing him to purge us of it.

It may be jumping hoops, but it's God who's doing all of the work, not us.

My pastor used to tell us "If there are one-hundred steps between us and God, we only need to take one. God then will then take the other ninety-nine." I don't see how that can be sadistic, evil, and negligent. I see it as merciful, loving, and compassionate. He wants us to live forever in His presence. But he can't baby us to making that decision. We have to decide. Then and only then can God do the rest.

And finally...


God did not want robots mindlessly loving and worshipping him, nor did he want to love mindless drones in return. He wanted a creature on par to choose to love him. Adam, through both innocence and a natural drive to love, chose to love His Creator and Father. But, so he would have a fair choice, God presented to him and Eve the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The chance to disobey was allowed, although He in no means wanted them to disobey. He did it out of being fair to them. "You can love me, or you can choose not to." However, choosing to reject him would set them outside of his love and protection, as that is what sin's nature does. Outside would be death. It wasn't a "love me or die" as some would put it, it was "Love me and I can protect and cherish you. Reject me and I cannot."

If you still have a problem with that answer feel free to tell me and I'll do my best to explain more clearly. Until then (if it would be so) I hope this helps. :)

As to the question, "Does God Know Everything" (and by "God" assuming we're talking about YHWH of the Bible, rather than Isis, Zeus, Allah, etc.), this is much like asking if the Pharaohs were a hundred feet tall.

Consider the temple Pharaoh Rameses II built at Abu Simbel. Now, archaeologists have no doubt that this temple was built in his lifetime. Just by looking at it, it is readily apparent that the artisans were highly skilled. Furthermore, it is also safe to assume that the chief artists would have seen Rameses II in the flesh. He probably even sat for a small mock-up statue.

So, when we look at these gigantic statues at Abu Simbel, are we then to assume that Rameses was a titan who stood well over a hundred feet tall? Surely these skilled artisans could not have made a mistake of such proportions! An archaeologist of "fundamentalist" mentality would have to assume that Rameses was in fact a giant, based on the "archaeological evidence." This is the same type of reasoning that forms doctrines of "omnipotence" and "omniscience," based on the ancient texts of the Bible instead of carved statues. Well, the mummy of Rameses II is lying in the Cairo museum, and he was just over 6 feet tall (very tall for that era, but not a giant).

This "paradox" is resolved by accepting the simple fact that the artisans who built Abu Simbel were not trying to create a scientifically accurate image of Rameses. This temple was created to generate certain effects in the people who viewed it, not provide a merely "realistic" representation of the Pharaoh.

Before it was moved to make way for the reservoir behind the Aswan High Dam, the temple of Abu Simbel sat on the ancient border between Egypt and Ethiopia (a powerful rival kingdom in Rameses' day). Every time an Ethiopian ambassador or merchant would come up to Egypt, s/he would pass that temple.

The message they recieved was obvious:

BEHOLD THE MIGHTY PHARAOH OF EGYPT! YOU ARE BUT INSECTS IN HIS SIGHT! (etc.). There was certainly no intent to try to persuade the Ethiopians that Rameses was a gigantic man, only to create in them feelings of weakness, inferiority, submission, etc. Furthermore, the Egyptians believed that creating a portrayal of something gave that something magical power, especially if the image was large and striking. So, in addition to its propagandic purpose, the temple also (according to Egyptian belief) projected a kind of magic force field of "Pharaoh-power" southward toward Ethiopia, helping to protect the nation from Ethiopian attack and keep that nation sending the tribute.

Now, if we go to the Bible, there are many passages that form the equivalent of that mummy in the Cairo Museum. None of the narrative passages of the Bible portraying YHWH ever show him as omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Very powerful (especially by the standards of the time), but not "able to *do anything.*" It's not even possible to write a story, especially a story of conflict, involving an "omnipotent, all-knowing" being.

This is because omnipotence, by definition, cannot be frustrated. A "rebellion" against omnipotence is not even possible. If the omnipotent force allows the "rebellion," then the "rebellion" has the sanction of the Authority, which means it is not really a "rebellion," by definition. Furthermore, the omnipotent Authority that sanctioned the "rebellion" would have no cause to become *angry.*

A person only becomes angry when they don't get their way, and by definition, "omnipotence" always gets its way. If the "omnipotent" force decides to allow some puny creature to "defy" it, that too, is the omnipotent force getting its way. What's there to get mad about? Yet, the Bible is full of passages, even entire books (e.g. "Revelation") about YHWH's furious wrath.

Omnipotence is clearly ruled out in the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gesthemane. Jesus is praying with total sincerity, to the point of sweating drops of blood, that "this cup" (the Crucifixion) should pass from him if there is any other way. Now, if there was anybody in Christianity that ought to be able to get his heartfelt prayers answered in the affirmative, surely Jesus must be that person. That Jesus is crucified anyway, is proof in Christian doctrine, that the Cross was the "only way" for people to be "saved."

Now, an omnipotent being *cannot* by definition be forced into a single, unpleasant option. It would always have unlimited options. Since YHWH/Jesus was forced into this "one way" means that some more powerful force was constraining him, limiting him to a single choice. Ergo, not omnipotent.

So, we get to "omniscient." There are many passages where YHWH claims to know the future and predict things in advance. But this ability, even if we grant it works at least sometimes, is portrayed as limited in scope. For example, in Genesis 11 (the Tower of Babel story), King Nimrod is able to organize a large-scale construction project and get it well underway before YHWH "comes down" (ergo, not omnipresent) sees what's going on, and becomes concerned about the threat it represents ("For nothing which they concieve in their hearts to do will be impossible for them" 11:6, as I recall).

And so, he confuses the people's languages to interfere with their ability to communicate scientific knowlege and organize themselves. If some ruler tried to organize such a project today, American spy satellites would pick it up as soon as he got his workforce together. YHWH apparently lacks such technology.

Now, if YHWH considered a ziggurat of mud-brick to be a threatening display of scientific knowlege and ability... 1) Notice that he was apparently unaware of the more technically-advanced, accurately-constructed stone pyramids that were built in Egypt, since he made no move to stop them. 2) What would he think of the Internet, jet fighter craft, rockets to the moon, nanotechnology, genetics, etc.?

As for the accuracy of his "knowlege of the future," consider all those "prophecies" in the New Testament claiming that the coming of Jesus was "at hand." He told the High Priest Caiphas that "you will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great glory," and he said in a gathering of his disciples "Some now standing here will not taste death before the Son of Man comes in his kingdom." The material in the New Testament proclaiming an imminent end to the world is so abundant no Christian can deny it. And, every generation of Christians has read these passages and assumed "this must mean us."

However, the only generation of Christians who had any right to that assumption was the generation of Jesus' time. The ones who actually recieved the original documents, or heard Jesus speak in person. They would obviously have interpreted these words the same way every other Christian who heard or read them did, the same way Christians interpret them today: that Jesus was supposed to be coming "soon," not thousands of years in the future.

This is dealt with in detail in the article below, with in-depth verse citations:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=86

Now, a Christian might respond, "But with God a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years." This is just deceptive argumentation. If Jesus was planning to come back 2000, or 5000 years in the future, and he "knew everything" (including the fact that the humans he was trying to communicate with would not interpret several millennia away as "soon" or "at hand"), then he was decieving his disciples and all future Christians, until that one lucky generation far in the future for whom his words were actually true.

This sort of interpretation is also ruled out by the completely ad-hoc and short-term way in which Christianity itself was organized and its revelation accumulated. Consider that so far, Christianity has endured about as long as the Mosaic Covenant (which Christians claim was superceded at the time of Christ). Now, if you go and read Exodus, or the other Torah law books, you'll see over and over again, plans for the long term.

You'll see repeated refereces to the Mosaic Covenant being "an everlasting ordinance for all your generations" and injunctions to "teach these commandments to your children, and your children's children". The authors of the Pentateuch were obviously trying to build a system they expected to last a long, long time. Furthermore, they explained in great detail exactly how that system was supposed to work, down to precise descriptions of items to be used in every important ritual.

In Christianity, everything is short-term. Paul encourages celibacy, since the End is At Hand, there's no need to create a family, or any enduring institutions. He tells "those who have a wife to act as if they had none." Throughout the NT, Christians are encouraged to model their behavior on the fact that there's not much time left. Jesus urges his followers to abandon family ("Anyone who does not hate his mother or father for my sake is not worthy of me"), to "sell everything, give to the poor, come and follow me", etc. There are no injunctions to "teach your children, and your children's children to follow Jesus, for all generations" or anything else that implies that Christians need to think about time going on, and on after they and their children are dead.

And most importantly, he leaves only the most scant instructions on how to build and organize "the Church." The Apostles (and their successors, such as the "Church Fathers," the various Councils like Nicea, etc.) are left to "figure it out" on their own, and only start trying to do so when they realize it's necessary, i.e. that they've got to set up a long-lasting institution.

And what do we have for canonical Scripture in the NT? Mostly a bunch of old mail (letters) scraped together when people started figuring out that Christianity would need a "Canon" after all. If you look at the works authored by "Luke" (i.e. Luke and Acts) it's obvious from his introduction that the author noticed, "Hey, everybody's dying off! I'd better go interview some people and write down a history of the Church, since we're apparently going to need it!"

All of the Gospels were written at least several decades after the death of Christ, i.e. after it became apparent Jesus wasn't coming so soon after all, and something had to be written or it would all be lost. If Jesus had been founding an institution he expected to last as long as the Mosaic Covenant, surely he would have saved his follwers a lot of schisms, heresies, etc., and wrote an "instruction manual" at least as good as the Mosaic Covenant.

That Jesus apparently wrote *nothing* strongly indicates he thought no new written material would be necessary. After all, the "kingdom of God is at hand." Why write stuff to pass down to "future generations" that will never exist?

So, what are we to make of all those passages in the Bible boasting of YHWH's omnipotent might and omniscient knowledge? I consider them to be the literary equivalent of those giant statues of Rameses. They are there to create a "proper" attitude of submission and reverence for YHWH, not to provide an accurate, logical description of his nature. The Bible writers certainly never pondered things like reconciling "omnipotence" and "omniscience" with free will, or wondered if YHWH could create a square triangle, or a rock to heavy for him to lift. That sort of thing never even occurred to them. If you don't believe me, compare the style of the Bible to that of any analytical Systematic Theology. "Systematic Theologies" exist precisely because the Bible *isn't* one.

In short (yeah, right!), the Bible writers were not trying to provide an accurate, literal description of YHWH and his nature any more than those Egyptian sculptors were creating an accurate, literal image of the Pharaoh. Both sought to magnify their Mighty King so that he would be revered and obeyed.

Originally Posted by Romanore
Adam's fall didn't only affect the entire human race. I cannot remember who it was who said this (kudos to you, whoever you are), but someone commented that the Original Sin was a Pandora's Box, opening the corruption of sin into the very nature of the world we live in. Because of their choice, sin was let in, imperfecting a perfect world and destroying what was meant to be eternal. God, of course, did not want this to happen. He didn't want Adam and Eve to dwell in sin, nor did he want their descendents to be affected by the choice of their parents. However, that's the nature of sin. And the nature of justice requires that sin be attoned for. Since it had effected anything and everything, God found it then absolutely necessary to purge the now imperfect world.

However, God, also being compassionate and loving, did not want to see all of manking fall to his Holy and Just wrath. This is why he is allowing us a chance to step out of this muck and back into his presence before all the world is destroyed at the end of times (No, it's not the Apocalypse, as some would have you believe--it's actually quite a while afterwards). However, he is doing it in the legal and just way. He can't, in his Holy Nature, allow us, creatures affected by and dwelling in sin, to get around attonement scott free without some sacrifice of sin of our own. Once we accept Christ, we are also admitting that we are victims of sin, thus allowing him to purge us of it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See Romanore's post a couple above for more, and a link to the thread from which this came.

I have to go to bed soon, so I don't have time right now to go and read your previous thread. Here's the short version:

Whenever one brings up the doctrine of Hell, Christians suddenly stop talking about their all-knowing, omnipotent, god, and explain that he's really a victim of impersonal forces.

Take Mahatma Gandhi. Here's a man who is arguably more "moral" than most Christians (or Buddhists, or atheists, or Muslims, or...etc.). Probably the greatest peacemaker in history, including Jesus, who said that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Now, the purely good, loving, all-powerful God wants with all his heart to love Gandhi, to sweep him up in his arms, and shower him with everlasting bliss. But there's a problem. See, when Gandhi was making his Pascal's Wager, he bet on Hinduism, and found his pair of twos beat by the Christian with the full house.

As a Hindu, obviously, he failed to worship YHWH in the proper way, which includes accepting Jesus as "Lord and Savior" and pledging a life of unconditional servitude. And so, the first Impersonal Force moves in, a force called "Sin."

Because of this force, YHWH is not able to love Gandhi. In combination with another Impersonal Force Christians call "perfect Justice" (or "his Holy nature" as cited above), YHWH must now throw Gandhi into Hell and torture him *forever* in punishment for a mere 80-some years of "sin." Poor YHWH doesn't have a choice in this. He *cannot* decide otherwise. He *cannot* decide that being a devout Hindu, or Wiccan, or Gnostic, Catholic, or Southern Baptist, etc. (depending on which of those Christian sects are Vile Heretics) is sufficient to allow him to love a person and welcome them into a blessed hereafter.

So, he is *forced* by these now all-powerful external circumstances to enact a "plan of salvation" that involves the brutal human sacrifice of a virgin, and ritual cannibalism on the part of his devotees ("eat my flesh, drink my blood, wash yourselves in my blood"), in order for anybody to be "saved." Now, doesn't all this bloody virgin-sacrifice sound just a little...um... *Satanic?*

But YHWH has no choice, you see. Everybody else--Adam, Satan, "sin," "justice," "his holy nature," you and I--*made* him do it! Ergo, YHWH is not omnipotent. Nor does he "know everything," otherwise he wouldn't have let himself get caught in a trap like that, would he? Isn't it a little humiliating for the All-Knowing, All-Powerful King O' The Cosmos to get himself in a pickle, and be prohibited from loving the vast majority of his children ("Narrow is the way, and few are they that find it") against his will, because a talking snake got a guy to eat a fruit?

Not only that, but to have himself *forced* by these circumstances into taking actions of incalculable brutality (Hell) that cause so many of his children to doubt his goodness, and fail to worship him properly, so that he has no choice but to be as vicious as they thought he was?

Concerning "his Holy nature" that constrains him to do these things, apparently YHWH has a severely limited range of "free will," maybe none at all. Again, a merely human king can, if he really wants to (assuming he's an Absolute Monarch like YHWH is supposed to be) forgive someone for breaking his laws, and if necessary even change his laws!

And, what exactly, makes an infinite brutality capable of torturing people *forever* "Holy" or "Just" in any way, shape or form? Modern Christians shrink away from the idea of burning witches at the stake, or torturing confessions out of them on the Rack. "Those guys weren't real Christians!" And yet, if this Impersonal Force called "Holiness" or "Justice" or whatever causes YHWH to burn witches in Hell *forever,* a Torquemada can hardly be blamed for wanting to abide by the same standard. If even "God" has no choice but to obey it, how could Torquemada do otherwise?

If this concept of "Holiness/Justice" is an Impersonal Force YHWH is subject to, then the Christian has an obligation to demonstrate the existence of this force, and explain why we sould call it "Holy" or "Just" instead of "Evil."

Okay, so the original question was, why did God ask Cain where Abel was?

The answer: To try and get him to tell the truth.

I'd argue with that. What God was doing was setting events in motion. He wanted Cain to live. If he'd come down there and started smiting without asking - without giving Cain that chance to reflect - Cain wouldn't have done the 'Hey, unfair!', and God wouldn't have had a reason to give him the Mark that meant he couldn't be killed. But he asked, Cain got that moment to think, and complained, so he survived. There may have been other effects - I forget what happens to Cain, but it's possible that question from God led to his redemption in the end. Or at least, it may have had /some/ effects.

The other question, showing up in-thread, is one of Free Will, and whether God and Humans can both have it.

It's been said that humans can have free will even if God knows what they're going to do. It was then said that, if God can see the future, he can't have free will, because he has to do what he sees himself doing.

What I propose is that God is closer to, say, someone on a rocket in deep space. Out there in the vacuum, you know exactly what consequences every use of any engine will have. Now you pick a goal for your spaceship, and calculate the exact series of thruster use that you need to get there.

Do you still have free will? Yes, of course you do. You /can/ randomly slam your hands on the controls and go spinning off into space - to bring the analogy back to God, he /can/, if he chooses, screw up the world as much as he wants. But he /doesn't/ want to, because he loves humanity (poor fool), and wants as many of them as possible to get... well, whatever his reward for being Good Little People is. So he can choose, and he does, continuously - he chooses to do what's best for Humanity.

And if you think about it, we're very lucky that we've got a god who's so nice to us. Imagine if he used the Earth to have fun, instead...

(This hypothesis fits the observed facts, but has no other evidence. I can supply no scripture to back it up - I'm just trying to work it out as I go along. If he ever tells me different, I'll let you know, but I doubt he will. He doesn't seem to want to talk to me)

Because of this force, YHWH is not able to love Gandhi. In combination with another Impersonal Force Christians call "perfect Justice" (or "his Holy nature" as cited above), YHWH must now throw Gandhi into Hell and torture him *forever* in punishment for a mere 80-some years of "sin." Poor YHWH doesn't have a choice in this. He *cannot* decide otherwise. He *cannot* decide that being a devout Hindu, or Wiccan, or Gnostic, Catholic, or Southern Baptist, etc. (depending on which of those Christian sects are Vile Heretics) is sufficient to allow him to love a person and welcome them into a blessed hereafter.

Now this is just nonsensical. Why would God want to change a previous decision? He has already formulated His plan and His system. God, being perfect, already has everything all worked out. He does not need to change His mind because He is incapable of indecision or of mistakes. Since He has already thought of everything, and all decisions that God makes must be right and just, why would He want to reverse Himself? Any change in the laws that He has enacted would only lead to imperfection and possibly the nullification of the entire divine system.

Now this is just nonsensical. Why would God want to change a previous decision? He has already formulated His plan and His system. God, being perfect, already has everything all worked out. He does not need to change His mind because He is incapable of indecision or of mistakes. Since He has already thought of everything, and all decisions that God makes must be right and just, why would He want to reverse Himself? Any change in the laws that He has enacted would only lead to imperfection and possibly the nullification of the entire divine system.

To begin, please note that my post was in response to Romanora (another Christian) who assures us that YHWH wants to love everyone, but can't, because "sin" "his Holy nature," etc. require him to torture people in Hell for eternity. It is Romanora who was claiming that your god has a motive to change things, but is unable to. You seem to think that perhaps he could, but has no desire to, since he's perfectly happy with the way things are. This is an internal dispute between Christians, in which I have no reason to take a side.

However, the "god" you're talking about must be something other than the deity of the Bible. There are a number of times where he is portrayed "repenting" of a decision (e.g. the decision to create man, just before the Flood narrative, his decision to exterminate the entire population of Sodom, after Abraham negotiates the rescue of Lot, et. al., his decision to exterminate the Hebrew people and replace them with a nation descended from Moses, after Moses' intercession, his decision to destroy Jerusalem as part of the "punishment" of David for taking a census of Israel, after David plead to be punished himself, instead of having innocent people suffer, etc.

Why would YHWH change his laws? Are you suggesting he hasn't? If so, when was the last time you brought a bull to be sacrificed at the Temple for a sin offering? Have you ever eaten pork or lobster? Do you have tassles (tzitziyot) at the four corners of your robe? To you shave, or trim the edges of your beard (if male)?

All of these are either forbidden (the eating of pork or shellfish) or commanded (animal sacrifices, tassles, etc.) in the Mosaic Law, which, is repeatedly described as "everlasting ordinances." Buuuuuut, Christians assure us that these laws no longer apply, because Jesus "fulfilled" them, which means we can eat pork and lobster like there's no tomorrow. Jesus is also portrayed as granting his disciples exemptions to the Sabbath law, because he is "lord of the Sabbath."

Even the "basics" like "Thou shalt not kill" could be "set aside" whenever YHWH wanted to see some Pagans slaughtered (see the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Samuel, Chronicles, Kings, etc.).

"Any change in the laws that He has enacted would only lead to imperfection and possibly the nullification of the entire divine system." Sooo, I suppose we can consider the "divine system" nullified then.

The Bible simply does not portray a deity who is "perfect" and "has everything all worked out." The text says what it says, and no amount of theological assumptions and double-talk about "perfection" can erase it.

Can you honestly look around at the world today and suggest that it is "perfect," the result of a pre-arranged Master Plan that could not be improved in any tiny detail?

Also, if, as you claim, YHWH is perfectly happy with this, the most perfect of possible worlds, then where does all this "Wrath of God" stuff come from? Since everything is "all worked out" and going fine, according to his perfect plan, what does he have to be angry about? And, since he's perfectly delighted to send the majority of humans to be tortured in Hell for eternity, why should we not recognize him as a force of evil?

A pointless exercise, considering that God knew what the answer would be before Cain even thought of killing Abel.

Are you honestly this dense? Or is this an act?

The question had little to do with anything but providing Cain the chance to allocute.

Wow. Lots to respond to. You make sure that you leave nothing out eh, Eleusia? ;) (That's a compliment)

Because of this force, YHWH is not able to love Gandhi. In combination with another Impersonal Force Christians call "perfect Justice" (or "his Holy nature" as cited above), YHWH must now throw Gandhi into Hell and torture him *forever* in punishment for a mere 80-some years of "sin." Poor YHWH doesn't have a choice in this. He *cannot* decide otherwise. He *cannot* decide that being a devout Hindu, or Wiccan, or Gnostic, Catholic, or Southern Baptist, etc. (depending on which of those Christian sects are Vile Heretics) is sufficient to allow him to love a person and welcome them into a blessed hereafter.

For one, God still loves Ghandi, no matter what state the man is in. He loves all of His creation. Hate never comes into the picture, and His fury is only directed at the sin itself. My point was and still is that, no matter how much He loves them and wants for them to be in His presence, sin is sin and He, being Holy and perfect, cannot and will not be in its presence. If a man chooses not to follow Yahweh after hearing His name, and does not accept the perfect sacrifice for his sins, then, no matter how much pain it causes the Lord, the man is still covered by sin (again a horrid thing that He cannot/will not touch) and He, therefore by His Holy and Perfect nature, will send it from His presence. Sin and Holiness are never ever compatable. Think of two positively charged magnets. If you attempt at placing the two together, they will only push on each other. It is impossible for them to touch unless one's charge is changed (bad example with the 'two positives' and where that may lead, but you get what I mean I hope).

So, he is *forced* by these now all-powerful external circumstances to enact a "plan of salvation" that involves the brutal human sacrifice of a virgin, and ritual cannibalism on the part of his devotees ("eat my flesh, drink my blood, wash yourselves in my blood"), in order for anybody to be "saved." Now, doesn't all this bloody virgin-sacrifice sound just a little...um... *Satanic?*

But YHWH has no choice, you see. Everybody else--Adam, Satan, "sin," "justice," "his holy nature," you and I--*made* him do it! Ergo, YHWH is not omnipotent. Nor does he "know everything," otherwise he wouldn't have let himself get caught in a trap like that, would he? Isn't it a little humiliating for the All-Knowing, All-Powerful King O' The Cosmos to get himself in a pickle, and be prohibited from loving the vast majority of his children ("Narrow is the way, and few are they that find it") against his will, because a talking snake got a guy to eat a fruit?

Erm... where did you get ritual cannibalism? The communion ritual is metaphorical, not literal. (Some minor sects may tell you otherwise, but I heartily disagree with them.) "Virgin sacrifice" isn't all that accurate either. Jesus could have easily married and, heck, had kids, and still be "without blemish". So long as he remained sinless and acted through the Laws, his sacrifice would be the same.

As for trapping God in a corner, it's as I said before. To be fair in giving man choice to love Him, He also gave man the chance to not love Him (a.k.a. step out of His presence). He knew there was the possibility of man falling away from Him, and, as He's omniscient, knew that man would. However, because of His love, and because of His fairness, He presented us with the choice, so as we would have true "free-will". He hoped we wouldn't step into the consequences of such blessings, but He wouldn't have stopped them either, as that would take away from that choice.

He also knew that the only true way to defeat sin was to inact Holy Justice upon it. The only possible punishment of sin is death. However, it took a perfect being's sacrifice, without sin to blemish the sacrifice, to remedy this. Christ was in no way forced into the matter. God could just have easily decided "Screw you all, I'm starting over." and be done with it. But because of His love for us, He chose to save us from our self-inflicted doom. He chose to take our punishment for us. There was nothing Satanic about it. Quite ironic if it would have been, as that's who He was defeating as He was crucified.

Not only that, but to have himself *forced* by these circumstances into taking actions of incalculable brutality (Hell) that cause so many of his children to doubt his goodness, and fail to worship him properly, so that he has no choice but to be as vicious as they thought he was?

Concerning "his Holy nature" that constrains him to do these things, apparently YHWH has a severely limited range of "free will," maybe none at all. Again, a merely human king can, if he really wants to (assuming he's an Absolute Monarch like YHWH is supposed to be) forgive someone for breaking his laws, and if necessary even change his laws!

Again, not forced. Hell is not a torture chamber invented by God to threaten those who choose not to love Him. Hell, or Sheol, is simply "Not God". The absence of His presence. Their "torture" is not pitchforks up the rear or rolling stones up a hill, it's eternal death, living without God and His warmth and love. The Lake of Fire, as mentioned in Revelation, is the final "resting place" of all who are condemned, including Satan and his fallen Host. Most likely, this is the natural reaction to one who is outside of Christ's love and protection. I don't imagine God saying "Hmm...how shall I torture these heathen bastards...rainbows and ponies? Endless reruns of Barney and Friends? No..no.. that's too easy for them. How about endless fire to scorch their rears? Yeah. That will do nicely." Again, it's the natural state of the lack in God's presence, nothing more. No nine levels, no three-headed Stan--er Satan--chewing an Judas and Brutus, nothing of the sort. In sum: The natural state of sin is death. The natural state of God is life. Those not in God are in sin. Those who are in sin die.

*applause from the peanut gallery*

damn you guys are good

im pretty sure this is the first time ive paid close attention to posts that long.

welcome to NS eleusia, i hope you stay a long time. i very much enjoyed your posts.

and hats off to romanore for well thought out replies.

"Afterward the Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother? Where is Abel?"

Now a God who knows everything has no reason to ask that question. He knows that Cain killed Abel.

Anyone got a reason that can't be frittered away?

Yes, God was trying to make a point.

*applause from the peanut gallery*

damn you guys are good

im pretty sure this is the first time ive paid close attention to posts that long.

welcome to NS eleusia, i hope you stay a long time. i very much enjoyed your posts.

and hats off to romanore for well thought out replies.

As I said, I try my best. ;)

And yes, welcome to NS Eleusia. I'm really enjoying my debate with you. Your thoughts are layed out well and explained quite clearly. I'm learning a great deal. *gives cookie* Now eat that so we can be friends, alright? :p

we now call pets "companion animals"

we cant be god's pets?
Are you suggesting that political correctness should be implied when assuming the will/intent of "god" ... in the same measure?

Now this is just nonsensical. Why would God want to change a previous decision? He has already formulated His plan and His system. God, being perfect, already has everything all worked out. He does not need to change His mind because He is incapable of indecision or of mistakes. Since He has already thought of everything, and all decisions that God makes must be right and just, why would He want to reverse Himself? Any change in the laws that He has enacted would only lead to imperfection and possibly the nullification of the entire divine system.
Maybe i'm interjecting where i don't belong, my apologies.

This topic was BEAT amazingly in Heikoku's "Come n'get me, pseudo-christians" thread, and it's worth looking through that one for a decent argument base for this - it's in the bible that god had regretted decisions it had made, and had also effectively made humans think it made mistakes. It's in there, and if this post is up long enough, i'll go exhume.

BTW - Eleusia, you ROCK!

It's simple really. God is supposed to know everything,assuming he exists (he doesn't). Past, present or future, God knows what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. So could someone explain Genesis 4:9 which reads:

"Afterward the Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother? Where is Abel?"

Now a God who knows everything has no reason to ask that question. He knows that Cain killed Abel.

Anyone got a reason that can't be frittered away?


you retard, god DID know where Abel was. Its obvious he was simply asking Cain , just like your mother used to ask you "where you were" when she already knew you had gone somewhere else and lied to her.

A pointless exercise, considering that God knew what the answer would be before Cain even thought of killing Abel.

God lets everyone have a free choice. Thats why you are going to hell. :)

It's like when your tell your parents that you are going to a friends, then go to a party someplace else. They find out, and when you get home, they ask you what you did, even though know where you were, and what you did. They give you a chance to NOT lie, and confess to what you did.

That's what God was doing. He was giving Cain a chance to confess, and repent and such.

thank you for being intelligent. your welcome at my house anytime.

If god did not exist, how would everything exist? SOMETHING had to make it. Even if the Big Bang theory is correct, SOMEONE made the gasses that floated around until they reacted. So, HA;

Are you suggesting that political correctness should be implied when assuming the will/intent of "god" ... in the same measure?
wellll if god is a pet lover, and i assume he is, then maybe its best if we dont accidentally offend him by using the word "pet" when companion animal is more PC?

ok no that wasnt what i was getting at.

i mentioned the phrase companion animal because it has the word companion in it and means pet.

god said he wanted a companion but we can never ever (unless we are mormon?) be the equal of god. so he cant mean an equal companion as human friends are. in my mind that does leave "pet" though not necessarily in a "teach them to jump through flaming hoops" kinda way.

many people feel that their dog is their best companion. i guess i just dont feel that the status of "god's pet" would be demeaning in any way.

God created humans.

Proof enough he isn't perfect :D

Maybe i'm interjecting where i don't belong, my apologies.

This topic was BEAT amazingly in Heikoku's "Come n'get me, pseudo-christians" thread, and it's worth looking through that one for a decent argument base for this - it's in the bible that god had regretted decisions it had made, and had also effectively made humans think it made mistakes. It's in there, and if this post is up long enough, i'll go exhume.

BTW - Eleusia, you ROCK!

I'm sure you may be referring to the Israelites' captivity, of which, yes He did proclaim sadness that it happened. However, that does not imply regret or making any sort of mistake. One can make the right decision and feel sorry for the repercussions it might have. However, the right decision was still made, and it would be the only decision He could have made and still remain Perfect.

Also, could you find that thread for me, I think it is already past the 6-7 page limit NS provides, and I've yet to learn how to go past it to search for older threads. Thanks in advance. :)

It's simple really. God is supposed to know everything,assuming he exists (he doesn't). Past, present or future, God knows what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. So could someone explain Genesis 4:9 which reads:

"Afterward the Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother? Where is Abel?"

Now a God who knows everything has no reason to ask that question. He knows that Cain killed Abel.

Anyone got a reason that can't be frittered away?
yes. God wants an admission. if God condemns him for lying, because He know's he will lie, then ppl would complain that He didn't give him a chance to confess.

Romanore wrote:

Wow. Lots to respond to. You make sure that you leave nothing out eh, Eleusia? ;) (That's a compliment)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you. :)


For one, God still loves Ghandi, no matter what state the man is in. He loves all of His creation. Hate never comes into the picture, and His fury is only directed at the sin itself.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
However, it is the individual YHWH "loves," not the abstraction called "sin" that does the weeping and gnashing of teeth in Hell. If you look up "wrath" in a Strong's Concordance and find those passages referring to YHWH's wrath (and not that of humans, etc.), I think it is abundantly clear that YHWH's wrath is indeed directed at the individuals being punished. "For the wrath of the LORD is revealed from Heaven against sinners" etc. Aside: will there really be teeth to gnash in Hell? >grin<

I do not know of any good Biblical support for the notion that YHWH is not angry at the "sinner," but only against an abstraction. We could imagine Torquemada saying, "Well, miss, it's not that I hate witches. I love them, and I really wish that you could have a happy life, but I really hate this thing called "witchcraft," so I have to burn you. Terribly sorry."

In any case, YHWH's emotional states are less relevant than his purported behavior. Orthodox Christianity teaches that YHWH will torture people in Hell forever. *He* is the one who decides who is, and is not "written in the Book of Life, *he* is the Judge, Jury, and Executioner at the Last Judgement, who decides what is and is not "sin," etc. He is responsible for torturing Gandhi forever in Hell, and I seriously doubt it would matter to Gandhi that YHWH "loves him, but hates the 'sin.'" Torture is torture, regardless of the motivations or sentiments of the torturer.


My point was and still is that, no matter how much He loves them and wants for them to be in His presence, sin is sin and He, being Holy and perfect, cannot and will not be in its presence.

^^^^^^^^^^^
To say the word "cannot" in relation to YHWH is to directly contradict the doctrine of omnipotence. "Holy and perfect"--by what standard? I do not regard the act of torturing someone in fire even temporarily, much less forever, as "holy" or "perfect" in any way, and I would like to see anyone try to make the case for that.

Also, the idea that "sin" cannot be in YHWH's presence is a direct denial of the doctrine of omnipresence (that "God is everywhere at once," for those not familiar with 50-cent theological terms). Since I am not a worshipper of YHWH, I am committing "sin," or infected by it, whatever. Therefore, YHWH cannot be here where I am.

If YHWH can "create a place" where he is not, to send people who do not choose to love him, he could (if he is "omnipotent" and/or the One Who Makes The Rules) make it any kind of place he chose. He could send all the rainbows-and-unicorns fluff-bunny Wiccans and New Agers who (sometimes literally) wouldn't hurt a fly to "Elysium" or "Summerland" or some pleasant, but YHWH-free place. So long as it was quarantined from him, he could "remove the presence of 'sin' from himself" without engaging in the gratuitous torture.

>snip<


Erm... where did you get ritual cannibalism? The communion ritual is metaphorical, not literal.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's pretty much what I meant by the term "ritual." In Communion, a Christian enacts a ritual that represents 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood' of Christ, while baptism is a ritual 'death-and-resurrection' combined with a 'washing in the blood of Christ.' IOW, there is a distinction between "ritual cannibalism" and (literal) cannibalism.

I do consider this aspect of Christianity to be a major moral inversion. In order to become a Christian, one must be willing to profit from the brutal torture, suffering, and death of an innocent person (Jesus). I consider this to be highly immoral.

It has a strong resemblance to the myth of the Vampire, IMO. A vampire is a creature that gains "immortality" by drinking the blood of innocent people (in the old vampire flicks, they preferred virgins, an archetype of "purity"). Likewise, Christians claim to recieve immortality by vicariously torturing, killing, and drinking the blood/eating the flesh of Jesus (who is said to be perfectly "pure").

To become "righteous" as a Christian, one must be willing to (metaphorically, at least) engage in the most heinous of evil.


(Some minor sects may tell you otherwise, but I heartily disagree with them.) "Virgin sacrifice" isn't all that accurate either. Jesus could have easily married and, heck, had kids, and still be "without blemish". So long as he remained sinless and acted through the Laws, his sacrifice would be the same.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agreed. However, the dominant position of orthodox Christianity is that Jesus never had sex. In case you don't remember the '80's :) there were mass protests of Christians against the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" due primarily to a scene where Jesus, on the Cross, is confronted with a fantasy/vision of a normal life includinig a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene.

In fairness to your comment, some sects of Christianity (Gnosticism in particular) held that Jesus was, in fact, married to Mary Magdalene. The historical evidence for these strains fo Christianity is discussed in books like "The Templar Revelation" and "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail."

Still, I think if you went into the average Evangelical/biblical literalist ("fundamentalist") church or Catholic church, and proposed that Jesus could have been married (most Jewish rabbis of his era were) and had kids, you would be rejected as a Vile Heretic. Hence, my comment about the "virgin sacrifice" of Jesus.


As for trapping God in a corner, it's as I said before. To be fair in giving man choice to love Him, He also gave man the chance to not love Him (a.k.a. step out of His presence). He knew there was the possibility of man falling away from Him, and, as He's omniscient, knew that man would. However, because of His love, and because of His fairness, He presented us with the choice, so as we would have true "free-will". He hoped we wouldn't step into the consequences of such blessings, but He wouldn't have stopped them either, as that would take away from that choice.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again: how is torturing someone *forever* because they believe in Hinduism, or Wicca, or a Christian sect that happens to be Heretical "fair" in any sense of the word? Either YHWH has a choice in the matter (of torture), or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then he's not omnipotent. Instead, he is constrained by some superior, evil power that forces him to torture people who don't worship him. Now, if he is really a "loving god" in the manner you suggest, then it would seem that he is in...Hell! It would certainly be "hell" for me to have to torture anyone who didn't worhip me, and I don't claim to be an icon of Platonic spiritual perfection!

Now, if I were in YHWH's sandals, I would behave quite differently. If we grant that some force called "Holy Justice" or whatever requires that any sapient beings I create *must* worship me and obey me unconditionally, or be tortured forever, I could avoid the sadism by making one of two choices:

A) Limit "free will" so that everyone must love and worship me, but can still choose what to wear, who to marry, etc.. Everyone goes to Heaven! Speaking of Heaven, this is exactly the state that will exist there, as there will be "no more sin," i.e. no more ability to choose to sin. I could just choose to start things out this way, instead of going through the whole "Earth Drama."

B) Decide that it is better for me to lack companionship than for the majority of my potential companions to end up being tortured for eternity. If I am an All-Powerful, Perfect, Holy, Supreme, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Necessary Being, I would not need companionship anyway. And if I did need it, it would still be a higher moral decision for me to suffer lonelliness and *not* torture anyone, if I could foresee that the consequences of creating humans and granting them free will made such torture inevitable. To reduce this to a human level, say that in order for me to to fall in love with a woman and get married, I would have to take every woman I dated who did not choose to marry me, and skin her alive, then slow-roast her until she died.. Call it "Holy Justice" or whatever. Obviously, the right thing to do on my part would be celibacy!


He also knew that the only true way to defeat sin was to inact Holy Justice upon it. The only possible punishment of sin is death.

^^^^^^^^^
Who or what imposes this "Holy Justice" on YHWH? Ist there another "God" above him? Who imposes this fixed "nature" on him, which he apparently cannot change? Any compassionate being would be repelled by the notion of Hell. I can tell that you are, otherwise, you would not have to attribute its supposed necessity to impersonal, non-accountable abstractions like "Holy Justice."

>snip<


Again, not forced.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps I should be more precise. YHWH is forced to employ the "plan of salvation" *if* he wants to "save" anyone. That is, if YHWH wants X, he must (i.e. he is "forced" to) do Y. He cannot get X by doing W, Z, Q, or any action *other* than X. Therefore, he is not omnipotent, since an omnipotent being can have X by a simple act of will, and cannot be constrained to any particular course of action. He could, however, decide he doesn't want X, and is therefore not "forced" to do Y in that case.


Hell is not a torture chamber invented by God to threaten those who choose not to love Him. Hell, or Sheol, is simply "Not God". The absence of His presence. Their "torture" is not pitchforks up the rear or rolling stones up a hill, it's eternal death, living without God and His warmth and love. The Lake of Fire, as mentioned in Revelation, is the final "resting place" of all who are condemned, including Satan and his fallen Host. Most likely, this is the natural reaction to one who is outside of Christ's love and protection. I don't imagine God saying "Hmm...how shall I torture these heathen bastards...rainbows and ponies? Endless reruns of Barney and Friends? No..no.. that's too easy for them. How about endless fire to scorch their rears? Yeah. That will do nicely." Again, it's the natural state of the lack in God's presence, nothing more.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think the Bible is very clear that Hell (as well as the various massacres, plagues, pestilences, famines, etc. in the OT) is (are) the manifestation of YHWH's *wrath* not a mere absence of his presence. It looks to me like you believe the "Hell is the absence of YHWH" theory because you're starting with an a priori belief that "God is perfect goodness, love, holiness, justice, etc." before you even open a Bible. As you start reading the Bible, you must find ways to make the god described there fit your a priori concept of "God" instead of simply judging YHWH based on how he is portrayed in the Bible. If you were to read in the Vedas that "The Lord SHIVA your God is a jealous God, his name is Jealous! And he shall torture all who refuse to worship him forever, and none shall escape his wrath!" you would quickly reject "Shiva" as a proper god. Likewise, if the Bible was somebody *else's* Holy Book (i.e. you had been raised in some other tradition, with the same a priori conception of "God" as perfect, loving, etc.) you would reject it.

I think that instead of trying to make the round peg of a "perfect, loving, absolutely good, forgiving" concept of the Divine fit into the square hole provided by the brutal, vicious character YHWH is portrayed as, you should recognize that you possess a superior concept of the Divine independent of the Bible. I recommend you go to the library and check out the "Conversations with God" books. I don't necessarily share the author's beliefs, but these books to present a far more enlightened concept of "God" than one finds in the Bible.

As an alternative, you could just pretend that you'd never heard of any "Holy Books" whatsoever, take a tablet out on some nice starry night or beautiful forest hike, and write about "God" as you understand Him/Her/It. Imagine that you're starting from scratch, trying to understand who/what "God" is. I'm sure you could produce a far more enlightened text than the Bible, or pretty much any Holy Book written in an age when people chopped each other up with swords for fun.


No nine levels, no three-headed Stan--er Satan--chewing an Judas and Brutus, nothing of the sort. In sum: The natural state of sin is death. The natural state of God is life. Those not in God are in sin. Those who are in sin die.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
His name is really "Stan?" LOL! No, seriously, I agree with you that Dante's vision of "Hell" is not in agreement with that of the Bible. "Satan" (1) is portrayed as an inmate, not the Camp Commandant, and he's got seven heads, not three (the Book of Revelation) :)

NOTES:

1) "Satan" (Hebrew, "ha-Satan") is in quotes because it is a title, meaning "Accuser" or "Adversary" (like a prosecuting attorney or Grand Inquisitor), not a proper name.

*applause from the peanut gallery*

damn you guys are good

im pretty sure this is the first time ive paid close attention to posts that long.

welcome to NS eleusia, i hope you stay a long time. i very much enjoyed your posts.

and hats off to romanore for well thought out replies.

Thank you. >tosses Ashmoria another bag of peanuts< I agree with you that Romanore is doing a great job. IMO, Christianity would be hard-pressed to find a much better representative, and (unfortunately) could do quite a bit worse.

For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 1 John 3:20

And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Matthew 10:30

"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." Rev. 4:11

As I said, I try my best. ;)

And yes, welcome to NS Eleusia. I'm really enjoying my debate with you. Your thoughts are layed out well and explained quite clearly. I'm learning a great deal. *gives cookie* Now eat that so we can be friends, alright? :p

**COOOKIEEEE!**

>Offers Romanore a slice of Chocolate Mousse<

"And they did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and entrails, and fruit bats, and orangutans, and God did grin..."

--Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail (paraphrase from memory).

Of course we can be friends. I hate your *belief system,* not you. >evil grin< (Hey, if YHWH can hate "sin" without hating the "sinner"...)

Seriously, I would like to be friends. I am enjoying this discussion with you, and I do think you are representing your side very well. I also think that the vast majority of Christians are good people who have been tricked into worshipping an evil memetic persona. Or, as I wrote in some story-in-progress I have around here somewhere (riffles through hard drive), "Your goodness does not come from Christianity. What goodness Christianity has comes from you."

Life, health, prosperity

Eleusia

For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 1 John 3:20

And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Matthew 10:30

"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." Rev. 4:11

Lord of pleasure,
Sweet of attraction,
Shining of rays,
The Lord of Light.

--hymn to Re Horakhti

You are Amun,
The Lord of him who is silent,
Who comes at the voice of the humble.
I called to you when I was sad,
And you came to save me.

--Hymn ot Amun-Re

Beautiful your rising in the lightland of sky,
O Living Aten, Creator of life,
When you have dawned in eastern lightland,
You fill every land with your beauty.
You are beauteous, great, glittering,
High over every land,
Your rays embrace the lands,
To the limits of all that you have made.

--Hymn to the Aten

Maybe i'm interjecting where i don't belong, my apologies.

This topic was BEAT amazingly in Heikoku's "Come n'get me, pseudo-christians" thread, and it's worth looking through that one for a decent argument base for this - it's in the bible that god had regretted decisions it had made, and had also effectively made humans think it made mistakes. It's in there, and if this post is up long enough, i'll go exhume.

BTW - Eleusia, you ROCK!

Thank you.

If god did not exist, how would everything exist? SOMETHING had to make it. Even if the Big Bang theory is correct, SOMEONE made the gasses that floated around until they reacted. So, HA;

>Yoda voice< Mmmm, sense sarcasm, I do. >/Yoda< :)

However, since this "argument" is often proposed seriously, I might as well refute it. ;)

Existence is axiomatic. There is no reason to propose a "god" (or leprechauns, or Cosmic Fluffle-Bunnies, or...) to solve the "mystery" of existence. Existence must exist, since even a denial of existence assumes existence, as an axiom.

If I say, "Nothing exists. It's all an illusion!" even this denial assumes three axioms, Existence, Identity, and Consciousness. Since I'm uttering a statement, I'm operating on the assumption that I exist, that my statement exists, and that others exist to hear/read it. Otherwise, why say it? That is the axiom of Existence.

I am assuming also that the information I transmit has a certain nature, that it "is what it is," and that the various transmission mediums (computer, phone line, electric current, etc.) also have specific natures. IOW, I am expecting that my statement "Nothing exists! It's all an illusion!" will not turn into "Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!" or "23! Fnord!" by the time somone reads it. If I thought this would be the case, the attempt to communicate my idea would be futile. Likewise, I'm assuming my audience consists of specific entities (e.g. humans) that exist and who will not morph into bowling balls that float into the air, sing opera, and hatch elephants. This is the axiom of Identity.

And finally, I am assuming that these are *conscious* entities able to percieve my statement and potentially come to agree with it. If there is no consciousness, what am I trying to convince that the universe is an illusion? This is the axiom of Consciousness.

Any possible statement rests on these three axioms, whether the person making the statement wants it to or not. Therefore, the notion that existence is somehow dependant ("Who made it?") is invalid. Even this statement assumes that there's a "who" (Consciousness) that exists (Existence) and possesses a nature capable of creating Universe (Identity).

Now, if Universe does not exist, where exactly is this "who" living? In order for it to be conscious, it has to be conscious of *something,* i.e. there must be something existing for it to be aware of. Furthermore, being a complex entity (especially if it is some kind of superduperbeing far superior to humans), it must be composed of simpler component parts. These component parts must exist independently of consciousness, unless we've got an infinite regress of "who's" making each Creator in turn.

So, instead of venturing off into unknowable dimensions in search of one "who" after another to "create" Universe, why not simply start with what we *know* exists, namely Universe itself?

"But the universe must have had an origin! Even the Big Bang theory says so!"

For one, I do not accept the Big Bang theory. It has many problems, IMO, and it failed to predict many important features of Universe as we know it, namely, the gigantic filamentary "megastructures" composed of billions of galaxies (the Big Bang predicted a "smoother" distribution of matter), and the recent discovery that cosmic expansion seems to be *accelerating* rather than slowing under the influence of gravity as the Big Bang predicted.

I prefer Hannes Alfven's "plasma cosmology," which predicted that Universe would have a filamentary structure on all scales, and is IMO compatible with accelerating expansion. This theory also is based on the idea of an eternally-existent Universe, which is consistent with the axioms as cited above.

And, even if Big Bang theory is accurate, Big Bang theorists don't actually claim that Universe just "popped into being from nothing." Rather, they consider it to be a quantum fluctuation in an eternally-existent spacetime that "cooled" into the particles/energies and physical forces we know today as it expanded. This is, of course, a very oversimplified explanation. Some physicists, like Stephen Hawking argue that the BB is not so much a beginning, as a boundary beyond which an "earlier" repetition of the cycle exists.

There is no solid proof for or against God its all in your beliefs....

He just chooses to ignore all of the non-believers and lost sheep.

I think we have established that the person who first posted was an idiot. Upon that we all can agree

The original post to this was pathetic. So easily torn down it shouldnt even be considered.... And i'm saying that as an atheist.

Some better biblical quotes questioning Gods all-knowing power (for those of you who believe in God in the first place)

Genesis
11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded
If he knows and sees all, why does he have to come down to take a look?

18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
He should know already, shouldnt have to ask himself

18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
again god is admitting he doesnt know something

22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Isnt God supposed to be able to see into every human mind and soul? why the elaborate test for Abraham then?

Numbers

22:9 And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee?
I could be wrong, but it definately seems like God is asking after information, NOT because he is testing to see if the poor guy knows who he is with

Deuteronomy

8:2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
Again with the unnecessary tests of faith that God should know already

2 Chronicles

32:31 Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.
Same problem again

Job

1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
God seems a little sketchy about the movements of Satan here. Why doesnt he just cut to the chase and say "hey satan, i know what you've been up to"

Hosea
8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
God is quoted as saying "and I know it not", if God does not lie then we have a direct quote from God straight from the bible telling us, in no uncertain terms, that he isn't all-knowing.


P.S. I thank the following site for my post http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/knows.html

wellll if god is a pet lover, and i assume he is, then maybe its best if we dont accidentally offend him by using the word "pet" when companion animal is more PC?

ok no that wasnt what i was getting at.

i mentioned the phrase companion animal because it has the word companion in it and means pet.

god said he wanted a companion but we can never ever (unless we are mormon?) be the equal of god. so he cant mean an equal companion as human friends are. in my mind that does leave "pet" though not necessarily in a "teach them to jump through flaming hoops" kinda way.

many people feel that their dog is their best companion. i guess i just dont feel that the status of "god's pet" would be demeaning in any way.
I'm sensing you and i (and various others) have a different understanding of the nature of what constitutes a "perfect companionship". Mine lends towards mutual capability, respect, understanding .... and choice, as i think i'd hinted.
As for "god" being an animal lover, "god" sure didn't seem to mind all the blood sacrifices along the way of its pets. Weird love there. :rolleyes:

I'm sure you may be referring to the Israelites' captivity, of which, yes He did proclaim sadness that it happened. However, that does not imply regret or making any sort of mistake. One can make the right decision and feel sorry for the repercussions it might have. However, the right decision was still made, and it would be the only decision He could have made and still remain Perfect.

Also, could you find that thread for me, I think it is already past the 6-7 page limit NS provides, and I've yet to learn how to go past it to search for older threads. Thanks in advance. :)
I'll have at it w/my 10 remaining minutes, my apologies if it takes another day to get posted. There are a HUGE number of posts - one of the longest according to a few old-timers here - on that thread. Lotsa great arguments though. I had clip&pasted but that's on my drive and i'm on public now, so i don't have as many options.
*sigh*