NationStates Jolt Archive

yup. negative or not though, that would be the consequence of that action.
You're saying god ain't powerful enough?

Exactly. He made the entire universe in seven days just by willing it. He couldn't give us happiness (or at least a lack of misery) without making us spoiled or like junkies? I mean, I don't need an ice cream lake or anything, but would it be too much for him not to make me watch the people I love die of horrible painful diseases? I promise I won't get too uppity over it.

well that's just it isn't it. You can promise that now, because you know what it is. You know what its like to watch people you love suffer and die. Would you be able to say that if you had no idea what it meant? In order to comprehend happiness, you have to have unhappiness to compare it too.

Probably.

Happiness (the emotion) is fleeting, but happiness (the state of mind) is lasting.
So you're saying god is to weak to make that happen?

Yeah, I was about to say that you just made my point for me, which is that he is not all powerful. There must be limits to his power. Which is fine with me. I still think eternal damnation is evidence that we are not loved, unless you want to give that up too.

well that's just it isn't it. You can promise that now, because you know what it is. You know what its like to watch people you love suffer and die. Would you be able to say that if you had no idea what it meant? In order to comprehend happiness, you have to have unhappiness to compare it too.
I challenge you to prove this.

So you're saying god is to weak to make that happen?
Having power does not equate to using power.

Yeah, I was about to say that you just made my point for me, which is that he is not all powerful. There must be limits to his power. Which is fine with me. I still think eternal damnation is evidence that we are not loved, unless you want to give that up too.
Well, everyone who believes in the omni-etc. god disagrees withyou. If god isn't all powerful why bother?

well that's just it isn't it. You can promise that now, because you know what it is. You know what its like to watch people you love suffer and die. Would you be able to say that if you had no idea what it meant? In order to comprehend happiness, you have to have unhappiness to compare it too.
but aren't all things possible with god?

Having power does not equate to using power.
So god is just sittin' on the sideline laughing at the starving African kids?

I'm not saying anything about god's behaviour, I'm saying your argument is flawed.

You say "God wouldn't do that because a certain ammount of the world population doesn't do that"
1. Have you asked this certain ammount of the population if they give their children anything they want?
2. What more human actions does god emulate?


:confused:

you most certainly are. You're deciding He does or doesn't exist by criteria (meaning His behavior) you comprise as worthwhile.

I'm saying "God wouldn't do that for the same reason GOOD PARENTS don't do that".

Probably.

Happiness (the emotion) is fleeting, but happiness (the state of mind) is lasting.

But none the less the child is happy. If you got everything you wanted would you not be happy?

So god is just sittin' on the sideline laughing at the starving African kids?
Why would he be laughing?

(No offense, but for a Comedy Option, you need better punch lines.)

you most certainly are. You're deciding He does or doesn't exist by criteria (meaning His behavior) you comprise as worthwhile.

I'm saying "God wouldn't do that for the same reason GOOD PARENTS don't do that".
So you're actually basing your argument on what God would do and would not do, on your definition of "GOOD PARENTS"? You realize this is totally void of logic?

Question: If people who forced their children to eat feces were veiwed upon as good parents by society. Would God make us eat feces? Because hey, thats what the "GOOD PARENTS" do.

you most certainly are. You're deciding He does or doesn't exist by criteria (meaning His behavior) you comprise as worthwhile.

I'm saying "God wouldn't do that for the same reason GOOD PARENTS don't do that".

So you're 100% positive that God wouldn't do that? There is no chance he could act in opposite to what you are saying?

But none the less the child is happy. If you got everything you wanted would you not be happy?
Probably not, as I don't think it's possible to get "everything you want". "Want" is a mental entity, it need never be wholly fulfilled.

But if I did have enough to be happy, in that state of mind, and if everyone around me were happy, too, we would still look for ways to be miserable. We would need challenges in order to grow and expand.

I am a humanist: I don't believe in God, miracles, the eternal soul or any form of life after death. I see things this way: we have one shot and one shot only at life, and we should make the most of this life and make sure that future generations can enjoy their lives. Thus, try not to mess up the planet and the societies we live in while we're there. I don't believe in God simply because everything that was once explained with a divine creator is now being explained with scientific theories that I simply find more plausable. The way I see it, God was how the people of the past explained things they didn't understand - their way of making sense of the world. however, with more and more things being explained by science, I find that religion just doesn't measure up. I'm not trying to offend any religious people here, merely explaining my views.

Why would he be laughing?

(No offense, but for a Comedy Option, you need better punch lines.)
It wasn't a punchline, I was using laughing as a means to get my point foreward: That it is rather cruel to have all that power and not help anyone out. I did not mean he was physically laughing or expressing joy over the suffering of people (which he might do for all we know).

Are you not aware that the romans kept census records? Or records of executions? There are records documenting His crucifixion. You can't be crucified if you don't exist.

Show me some evidence. Cite your source.

Something contemporary, something independent like that - if it existed - would be a worthy piece of evidence.

Unfortunately, I believe you have very likely been deceived.

I am a humanist: I don't believe in God, miracles, the eternal soul or any form of life after death. I see things this way: we have one shot and one shot only at life, and we should make the most of this life and make sure that future generations can enjoy their lives. Thus, try not to mess up the planet and the societies we live in while we're there.
I share your beliefs, to this point, but I am a theist. Go figure. :)

*hugs*

So a happy child does not equal a happy child. Sure they are happy, but not really happy happy. Am I the only one seeing this???

Its late on Friday afternoon. If you want to turn this into an unreasonable game of semantics, I don't have the time.

It really doesn't mean a thing to me whether you believe or not. That will be between you and Him when the time comes...or not. I guess if you're right about Him, you'll never know because when you die there will be nothing. No worries no nothing. But if you're wrong...?

Probably not, as I don't think it's possible to get "everything you want". "Want" is a mental entity, it need never be wholly fulfilled.

But if I did have enough to be happy, in that state of mind, and if everyone around me were happy, too, we would still look for ways to be miserable. We would need challenges in order to grow and expand.
Again you're saying god isn't omniscient/benevolent/etc.

But none the less the child is happy. If you got everything you wanted would you not be happy?

you might wanna do some reading on child psychology.

I liked the comparison with parenting. But I find it hopelessly flawed. After all, we're talking about god here.

So to make the analogy more accurate, answer me this:

Why do people do things like forcing their children to wear seatbelts in the car?
Why do people try their very best to make sure their children don't acdidentially fall down stairs, climb into the oven or whatever?
Why don't people thrash their children to within an inch of their life repeatedly, when the children does something the parents frowns on?

God seems to do the exact opposite to us. He makes an unsafe environment that often kills through no fault of it's inhabitants.
He deals out never-ending punishment for things we can't really help.

I mean, I couldn't believe in god even if I wanted to. It's like asking me to believe in ghostbusters. And the punishment is neverending and unbearable?!

Likeable bloke that god of yours. Really...

Its late on Friday afternoon. If you want to turn this into an unreasonable game of semantics, I don't have the time.

It really doesn't mean a thing to me whether you believe or not. That will be between you and Him when the time comes...or not. I guess if you're right about Him, you'll never know because when you die there will be nothing. No worries no nothing. But if you're wrong...?
Well, this guy I met said if I didn't dance around naked in the moonligh singing about unicorns I would meet an eternal flaming hell when I died. Anyways, I don't believe in that ... but if what I'm wrong?

WELL BETTER GET ME' DANCIN' SHOES. A threat of bad things to come if you don't do as other people want you to, like hell in the bilbe is NEW AND RADICAL!!!

The explanation that the jewish/christian/muslim religions offer are miserable little man made explanations, that are an insult to the vast complexity of this world. The idea of a "creator" is absolutely ludicrous, and is a relict of the pre-scientific human era.

So you're actually basing your argument on what God would do and would not do, on your definition of "GOOD PARENTS"? You realize this is totally void of logic?

Question: If people who forced their children to eat feces were veiwed upon as good parents by society. Would God make us eat feces? Because hey, thats what the "GOOD PARENTS" do.

the void of logic is yours. Good parents isn't a lable given to what the majority of parents view. It isn't a popularity thing or even a customary thing. Good parents are parents who do what is BEST for their child. Good parents do what is RIGHT for their child. God doesn't base what HE does on our interpretation of things, He does what HE will. You can call evil good and good evil for all I care, it doesn't change what IS good.

Again you're saying god isn't omniscient/benevolent/etc.
Yes; omniscience is inimical to free will.

Omnipotence is not necessarily, though. As I said ealier, having power does not equate to using it.

So you're 100% positive that God wouldn't do that? There is no chance he could act in opposite to what you are saying?

How can I be 100% positive? I believe He wouldn't do that. I know that He HASN'T done that. He doesn't need my measly permission to act in any way He sees fit.

Are you 100% positive on your position here?

the void of logic is yours. Good parents isn't a lable given to what the majority of parents view. It isn't a popularity thing or even a customary thing. Good parents are parents who do what is BEST for their child. Good parents do what is RIGHT for their child. God doesn't base what HE does on our interpretation of things, He does what HE will. You can call evil good and good evil for all I care, it doesn't change what IS good.
So if I think cutting my baby's weiner of is BEST and RIGHT for my child, does this make GOD want TO do the SAME thing?

DO you NOT comprehend that YOUR subjective interpitations of HUMAN behaviour IS not something you can ATTATCH to a superNATURAL entity? Do you not fantom that the very IDEAS OF WHAT IS GOOD AND EVIL/RIGHT OR WRONG will alwasy change? THEY ARE social COnstrUcts...

Yes; omniscience is inimical to free will.

Omnipotence is not necessarily, though. As I said ealier, having power does not equate to using it.
Omniscient is knowing everything that is logically possible to know.

So god is a mean prick then?

Yes she did. Stop playing with cemantics of "right", "wrong" and "good" and "evil". Eve knew she shouldnt eat the apple in the same way a child knows not to go upstairs if a parent commands a child not to. Its not a moral descision, she doesnt need to know if its morally right or wrong, its just a question of obedience and disobedience. She knew to obey God was what she should do because she knew who God was.


Two children sitting in the garden. They have been raised in isolation.

All they know is each other, and 'Father' (who might, or might not be a direct relative... but who claims the garden is his).

'Father' says to the small children that they may eat ANY of the fruit of the garden, except for the bananas.

In walks 'Mother'. 'Mother' is different to 'Father'... but she shares certain similarities... she talks (while the squirrels don't), and she seems to know a lot of stuff.

'Mother' says it's okay to eat bananas, and, when the children explain that they were told not to... 'Mother' explains how it is okay.

The children eat one of the bananas.

'Father' gets home and brutally tortures the two children to death.

It's not ABOUT 'morality' - it's about KNOWING, and about OBEYING.

Your 'story' involves two small children beaing brutally tortured to death because they didn't KNOW any better than to OBEY when they were told to.

God is loving but he is also just. Because of the nature of sin (which we dont often take seriously enough) he had to punish us severly. Just saying "I forgive you" would not be just. Something had to be done

Rubbish.

Just saying 'I forgive you' is the ONLY truly just action an omnipotent god COULD take... anything else is petty vengeance.

Show me some evidence. Cite your source.

Something contemporary, something independent like that - if it existed - would be a worthy piece of evidence.

Unfortunately, I believe you have very likely been deceived.

well at the moment, I'm at the office. I have no evidence with me. I'll see if I can't look something up tonight. It won't be links to websites, though. It will be more like book names and authors that you can then go research on your own.

DO you NOT comprehend that YOUR subjective interpitations of HUMAN behaviour IS not something you can ATTATCH to a superNATURAL entity?
On the contrary, subjective interpretations are the only thing that we can attach to a supernatural entity. We need to create an image in order to relate to it, share it, and to communicate about it.

Again you're saying god isn't omniscient/benevolent/etc.

I don't see that she said that at all. You're now putting words in her mouth.

On the contrary, subjective interpretations are the only thing that we can attach to a supernatural entity. We need to create an image in order to relate to it, share it, and to communicate about it.
So if everyone though that sodomizing their children was the right thing to do and the best thing to do for their children, God would do the same?

So god is a mean prick then?
Or he suffers.

I don't see that she said that at all. You're now putting words in her mouth.
If there is something you cannot do, you're not omnipotent.

well at the moment, I'm at the office. I have no evidence with me. I'll see if I can't look something up tonight. It won't be links to websites, though. It will be more like book names and authors that you can then go research on your own.

Sounds good to me... I have been researching the issue for about a decade and a half, so I'd be interested to see what source you have that YOU think reliable...

The earliest independent corroboration of the life (or death) of the man they call Christ, is Josephus' account, from most of a century later than the alleged crucifixion.

And, many experts believe that the 'Jesus' parts of Josephus' work were added later than that.

I would be very interested to see actual evidence of the provable crucifixion of the man they called Christ.

Or he suffers.
Or he wears a pink tutu while sipping cola at the beach?

I don't see that she said that at all. You're now putting words in her mouth.
The idea that there is only one possible outcome to a scenario is incompatible with the idea of an omnipotent god. And ominipotent god could change the outcome to anything.

She knew who God was, far better than we do now, the Bible describes how he walked with them in the cool of the day. God did not create Adam and Eve ignorent. They knew who God was and there is no evidence of their ignorence.

How would she know who 'god' was?

She walked in the garden with him? And a few weeks ago a girl disappeared from a nightclub in a high-profile incident... and yet, she had wlaked places with people...

How well does that mean one knows someone?

They had no way TO know who 'god' was. They hadn't learned about sex yet, so they wouldn't have understood 'father'... all they could have known is that this bloke kept walking the gardens... and that he was very bossy.

You are trying to change what Adam or Eve COULD have known, based on knowledge YOU have.

If there is something you cannot do, you're not omnipotent.
Well, the thing about happiness is that it is a mental entity. The theory is that God allows us to do what we will. He does not interfere. To say he does not interfere is not to say he can't. "Potence" has the same root as "potential" (or maybe it is the root, but anyway...) and potential, as in enegy, is unfulfilled.

(Actually, I'm not versed in the defintions and discussions of what omni-thingies are, so I could be wrong about this.)

The idea that there is only one possible outcome to a scenario is incompatible with the idea of an omnipotent god. And ominipotent god could change the outcome to anything.
Could, but not would.

Well, the thing about happiness is that it is a mental entity. The theory is that God allows us to do what we will. He does not interfere. To say he does not interfere is not to say he can't. "Potence" has the same root as "potential" (or maybe it is the root, but anyway...) and potential, as in enegy, is unfulfilled.

(Actually, I'm not versed in the defintions and discussions of what omni-powers are, so I could be wrong about this.)
Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

You've said all this "He does not interfer" before. So choose.
God:
"Not Omnipotent*" or "A mean prick.**"

*Because he can't fix starvation in Africa
**Because he won't fix starvation in Africa

Well, the thing about happiness is that it is a mental entity. The theory is that God allows us to do what we will. He does not interfere. To say he does not interfere is not to say he can't. "Potence" has the same root as "potential" (or maybe it is the root, but anyway...) and potential, as in enegy, is unfulfilled.

(Actually, I'm not versed in the defintions and discussions of what omni-thingies are, so I could be wrong about this.)
But then we're back to square one. He could give us happiness (or at least an absence of suffering) and a comprehension of happiness, and keep us from acting like spoiled children, and create us so that we WANT what he wants, and all of these things and he doesn't. That is incompatible with his supposed love for us.

I liked the comparison with parenting. But I find it hopelessly flawed. After all, we're talking about god here.

So to make the analogy more accurate, answer me this:

Why do people do things like forcing their children to wear seatbelts in the car?
Why do people try their very best to make sure their children don't acdidentially fall down stairs, climb into the oven or whatever?
Why don't people thrash their children to within an inch of their life repeatedly, when the children does something the parents frowns on?

God seems to do the exact opposite to us. He makes an unsafe environment that often kills through no fault of it's inhabitants.
He deals out never-ending punishment for things we can't really help.

I mean, I couldn't believe in god even if I wanted to. It's like asking me to believe in ghostbusters. And the punishment is neverending and unbearable?!

Likeable bloke that god of yours. Really...

We strap our kids in the car because we want them alive. We attempt to avoid their falling down the stairs for the same reason. Some mistakes are necessary. Some injuries have to occur. If you raise a child in a vacuum where nothing ever goes wrong, that child never learns to take care of itself. That child never learns to avoid dangerous situations.
If the child never sees wrong, it will never the difference between right and wrong. When THIS child grows up and is out on its own, it is a hopeless human being with no ability to think on its own, avoid problems on its own, or ever choose correctly between right and wrong.

God doesn't punish us for eternity because we do something He frowns upon. Hell was not made for man, it was made for Lucifer and his demons. We have the choice. We can have a relationship with Him, or we can refuse to have one. If you choose during your life to refuse that relationship, then God honors that choice by separating you from Him after you die. There is only one place God will not be when that time comes.

Well, this guy I met said if I didn't dance around naked in the moonligh singing about unicorns I would meet an eternal flaming hell when I died. Anyways, I don't believe in that ... but if what I'm wrong?

WELL BETTER GET ME' DANCIN' SHOES. A threat of bad things to come if you don't do as other people want you to, like hell in the bilbe is NEW AND RADICAL!!!

it isn't about what other people want you to do. It matters not at all to me what you do. But you might think about that naked dancing, there might be girls there that same guy talked to. ;)

We strap our kids in the car because we want them alive. We attempt to avoid their falling down the stairs for the same reason. Some mistakes are necessary. Some injuries have to occur. If you raise a child in a vacuum where nothing ever goes wrong, that child never learns to take care of itself. That child never learns to avoid dangerous situations.
If the child never sees wrong, it will never the difference between right and wrong. When THIS child grows up and is out on its own, it is a hopeless human being with no ability to think on its own, avoid problems on its own, or ever choose correctly between right and wrong.

God doesn't punish us for eternity because we do something He frowns upon. Hell was not made for man, it was made for Lucifer and his demons. We have the choice. We can have a relationship with Him, or we can refuse to have one. If you choose during your life to refuse that relationship, then God honors that choice by separating you from Him after you die. There is only one place God will not be when that time comes.
This is totally true because like the bible says so and all the people I know says so.

(The bible is totally radically OLD)

Sorry for this sarcasm, but your personal belief isn't really convincing.

The explanation that the jewish/christian/muslim religions offer are miserable little man made explanations, that are an insult to the vast complexity of this world. The idea of a "creator" is absolutely ludicrous, and is a relict of the pre-scientific human era.

oh yeah? try reading some of today's scientists. You'll find quite a lot of science is pointing back towards a creator. Evolution is falling apart and intelligent design is taking over.

oh yeah? try reading some of today's scientists. You'll find quite a lot of science is pointing back towards a creator. Evolution is falling apart and intelligent design is taking over.
Ha ha ha. Sir, this thread is now about pie.

Seriously, words fail me...

a) False- there isn't even a valid theory to explain the origin of life. No scientist is even CLOSE to a theory. How can you state its been proven when there isn't even a plausible theory?


Strawman Fallacy. The other poster discussed evolution... and you start talking about 'origins of life'. You are fighting a strawman.


b) False- there is quite a lot of evidence. Ever hear of the Cambrian Explosion? It isn't a biblical term. According to this scientific discovery, all complex life forms appeared on the scene fully formed at the same time.


Evidence? Cite a scource? I think you are confused... from what I recall of the Cambrian Explosion, the idea is that there is a sudden burst of complexity... which is NOT the same as complex life forms all appearing, fully formed, at the same time.


Jesus is a proven historical figure. There is enough non-biblical evidence that NO ONE (except those who don't look it up) disputes. The only people who believe He never lived are those who never bothered to look it up. Your ignorance on the subject is overshadowed only by your intolerant and rude demeanor.

Jesus is not as 'proven' as you might like to think. The only CONTEMPORARY sources are ALL written by followers, or associates of followers.... so nothing independent.

The first INDEPENDENT sources are Josephus' texts... most of a century later... so nothing CONTEMPORARY.

There is no non-scriptural evidence to support ANYTHING about Jesus.... even that he existed.

And, even if there was an evidence of the life of 'the man they called Christ'... that would do nothing to prove that he was anything but ordinary.

Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
Yes, thank you for the definition; however, I happen to know there are long essays written about this topic by scholars and theologians that probably do it better justice than I could.

You've said all this "He does not interfer" before. So choose.
God:
"Not Omnipotent*" or "A mean prick.**"

*Because he can't fix starvation in Africa
**Because he won't fix starvation in Africa
Those are not the only choices. As I said, it could also be that god suffers.

We strap our kids in the car because we want them alive. We attempt to avoid their falling down the stairs for the same reason. Some mistakes are necessary. Some injuries have to occur. If you raise a child in a vacuum where nothing ever goes wrong, that child never learns to take care of itself. That child never learns to avoid dangerous situations.
If the child never sees wrong, it will never the difference between right and wrong. When THIS child grows up and is out on its own, it is a hopeless human being with no ability to think on its own, avoid problems on its own, or ever choose correctly between right and wrong.

God doesn't punish us for eternity because we do something He frowns upon. Hell was not made for man, it was made for Lucifer and his demons. We have the choice. We can have a relationship with Him, or we can refuse to have one. If you choose during your life to refuse that relationship, then God honors that choice by separating you from Him after you die. There is only one place God will not be when that time comes.

Once again, incompatible with love.

1) if god wants a relationship so bad, why doesn't he come speak to me. In English. And make it unmistakeable. Trust me, if god did that he would have my good friendship, although I would have some serious questions for them and I would want answers.

2) if I loved someone and they wanted nothing to do with me, I would be sad. But to sentence them to eternal torture is unthinkable and monstrous. God is not "honoring" any choice by sending you to a lake of fire. That's completely disingenuous. If he was going to honor that choice he could probably find somewhere for us nonbelievers to go that didn't include being tortured for eternity.

Yes, thank you for the definition; however, I happen to know there are long essays written about this topic by scholars and theologians that probably do it better justice than I could.


Those are not the only choices. As I said, it could also be that god suffers.
Why would he suffer?

.


Those are not the only choices. As I said, it could also be that god suffers.
Why would god allow himself to suffer if he were omnipotent?

But then we're back to square one. He could give us happiness (or at least an absence of suffering) and a comprehension of happiness, and keep us from acting like spoiled children, and create us so that we WANT what he wants, and all of these things and he doesn't. That is incompatible with his supposed love for us.
Not necessarily: it does not say anything about his capacity for love. I imagine, from the Christian perspective though, that he must suffer terribly.

So if I think cutting my baby's weiner of is BEST and RIGHT for my child, does this make GOD want TO do the SAME thing?

DO you NOT comprehend that YOUR subjective interpitations of HUMAN behaviour IS not something you can ATTATCH to a superNATURAL entity? Do you not fantom that the very IDEAS OF WHAT IS GOOD AND EVIL/RIGHT OR WRONG will alwasy change? THEY ARE social COnstrUcts...

you didn't listen to what I said. God doesn't need YOUR interpretation of right and wrong. God will do what HE sees as right, not what YOU see as right.

You are wrong. good and evil are not social constructs. right and wrong aren't either. You cutting your baby's weiner off is wrong. Its also evil. No amount of social constructing will ever change that. Terrorists bombing London train stations is wrong and evil. No social constructs will EVER change that. Gang raping young girls (and boys for that matter) is wrong AND evil, no social constructs will EVER change that. These things may become acceptable some day, but that will never make them RIGHT AND GOOD.

Don't even joke. Intelligent design is only taking over because in the increasingly rightist America it pays more to sell out to the conservative movement and provide evidence for what they want to hear instead of providing evidence for what is actually true. It's also only taking over because Christians are pushing to get it into schools, when it's not actually a scientific theory with any evidence at all, but one person's guess as good as anyone else's. Evolution, however, even if not considered the source of all life, is extremely, strongly, proven. Evolution has been and is happening, undeniably, so it should be taught in schools. There is overwhelming evidence in fossil records of the gradual changes of organisms over the millennia, also known as evolution. That's something I consider separate from the issue of where people came from.

Edit: Sorry, I was answering the intelligent design person, obviously. I suspect good and evil are social constructs, but that's not to say some things don't feel right and some things don't feel wrong, and I don't ignore those feelings.

And is bombing London really so evil if the people doing it are showing the bystanders of global oppression how they feel? The fact is, we first-worlders are letting our governments do horrible things to peoples afar. To call all violence evil is silly and doesn't take the context into consideration. I don't think self-defense is evil at all, only unpleasant. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want to be blown to pieces, and I think it's horrible that this is the only way people can get through to us, but I am saying I want every single western government and corporation out of the middle east so that kind of thing doesn't have to happen anymore.)

oh yeah? try reading some of today's scientists. You'll find quite a lot of science is pointing back towards a creator. Evolution is falling apart and intelligent design is taking over.

I DO read 'some of today's scientists'... which peer-reviewed 'scientists' are you referring to?

Perhaps... if the only science journals you read are 'religious' ones, that allow non-peer-reviewed material... and that favour a 'spiritual' explanation (I wonder if you get your information from "Creationmoments.com")... you MIGHT find what you claim.

But, on the other hand, if you look at peer-reviewed material... I think the jury is still out, at best, on original 'forces' of creation... and fairly sceptical on the subject of intelligent creation.

Not necessarily: it does not say anything about his capacity for love. I imagine, from the Christian perspective though, that he must suffer terribly.
Well then he must be a sado-machosist who likes to suffer because as an omnipotent being he can always take it a way, or make humans behave in a way that would not cause said suffering.

Two children sitting in the garden. They have been raised in isolation.

All they know is each other, and 'Father' (who might, or might not be a direct relative... but who claims the garden is his).

'Father' says to the small children that they may eat ANY of the fruit of the garden, except for the bananas.

In walks 'Mother'. 'Mother' is different to 'Father'... but she shares certain similarities... she talks (while the squirrels don't), and she seems to know a lot of stuff.

'Mother' says it's okay to eat bananas, and, when the children explain that they were told not to... 'Mother' explains how it is okay.

The children eat one of the bananas.

'Father' gets home and brutally tortures the two children to death.

It's not ABOUT 'morality' - it's about KNOWING, and about OBEYING.

Your 'story' involves two small children beaing brutally tortured to death because they didn't KNOW any better than to OBEY when they were told to.



Rubbish.

Just saying 'I forgive you' is the ONLY truly just action an omnipotent god COULD take... anything else is petty vengeance.

not true. God has said I will forgive you if you accept my Son. Has that been enough to bring you to Him?

Why would he suffer?
Because he has infinite love and compassion. "Meanliness" is not the only conclusion that can be drawen from your limited scenario.

Why would god allow himself to suffer if he were omnipotent?
Because we have free will.

The books mentioned earlier, written by Lee Strobel discuss the evidence with today's leading scientists on many different subjects. Some of these subjects include evolution, the big bang, the sightings of Jesus after His death, etc.

Check them out. Even if you don't believe and don't want to believe, even if you won't be convinced, the reading is exceptionally interesting and there's quite a lot to learn about science while you do.

The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
The Case for a Creator.

All excellently written by a former atheist

I'm a Christian, but am I the only one who is finding these arguments to be helping the other side more than Christians? Strobel has been thoroughly debunked. His pseudo-science wouldn't pass the burden of scientific that most philosophy majors would hold him to, let alone scientists.

The Cambrian explosion is nothing like what you described, and doesn't fit with creation either as it happened before the Earth was supposed to exist.

The earliest known explanation for the beginning of Life is not in the Bible, many religions existed long before Judaism and nearly all had an estimation for the beginning of Earth, Time, the universe, etc.

Please, oh, please, stop talking. You're hurting more than you're helping.

For everyone else, debunking the wild theories of someone who clearly doesn't understand them is not evidence that God does not exist or is unloving.

Well then he must be a sado-machosist who likes to suffer because as an omnipotent being he can always take it a way, or make humans behave in a way that would not cause said suffering.
That would imply that he enjoys the suffering, and (like the "laughing" earlier) there is no reason to conclude that, either.

If he "made us behave in a certain way," we would not have will.

So if everyone though that sodomizing their children was the right thing to do and the best thing to do for their children, God would do the same?

you're not getting into the spirit of this are you? What WE decide is right and best isn't necessarily what is right and best. God does NOT NEED our interpretations. HE already knows what is right and best regardless of how much understanding WE have of it.

Intelligent Design is not even a theory in a scientific sense. It's not falsifiable, not predictive. It basically finds genuine or fraudulent ambiguities in our understanding of evolution and makes a huge logical leap to the existence of an intelligent creator.

Its sad to hear so many can out right deny the exisitence of God. one day it will be too late and you will realize God does exist, but after death there are no more chances. Islam broke off from Judaism "Ishmael' Christianity was to REPLACE the jewish religion but the jews rejected Jesus the Son of God and crucified him. i just dont see how you can look out off a mountain , alll of creation , and still doubt. also i wouldnt put much stock in the left behind authors either. because their beliefs about the events of the 'end times are so off base its not even funny. yes people believe those things but not all of us. and the catholic church isnt 'The Church' it broke off from the New Testament Church,, evident in the fact that the catholic church isnt true in all aspects of its teaching.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" John 3:16

Because we have free will.
groooan...this is exactly where we started.

since our free will is the reason for all of our AND his suffering, why is it better for us to have free will than it would for us not to.

You realize you have made a completely circular argument.

Its sad to hear so many can out right deny the exisitence of God. one day it will be too late and you will realize God does exist, but after death there are no more chances. Islam broke off from Judaism "Ishmael' Christianity was to REPLACE the jewish religion but the jews rejected Jesus the Son of God and crucified him. i just dont see how you can look out off a mountain , alll of creation , and still doubt. also i wouldnt put much stock in the left behind authors either. because their beliefs about the events of the 'end times are so off base its not even funny. yes people believe those things but not all of us. and the catholic church isnt 'The Church' it broke off from the New Testament Church,, evident in the fact that the catholic church isnt true in all aspects of its teaching.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" John 3:16

platitudes and a bible verse. I'm convinced.

since our free will is the reason for all of our AND his suffering, why is it better for us to have free will than it would for us not to.
So that you can ask that question.

Revel in it; it's a beautiful question. ;)

If there is something you cannot do, you're not omnipotent.

not true, all powerful does not necessarily mean you can do everything. God is all powerful but He cannot make Himself cease to exist. He cannot make mistakes and He cannot give free will to man without man having choice between good and evil. For a man to choose between good and evil, both must exist before hand.

Because he has infinite love and compassion. "Meanliness" is not the only conclusion that can be drawen from your limited scenario.


Because we have free will.
Then he suffers only to make us feel guilty, which leads to the "why is God such a mean prick" question.

Once again, incompatible with love.

1) if god wants a relationship so bad, why doesn't he come speak to me. In English. And make it unmistakeable. Trust me, if god did that he would have my good friendship, although I would have some serious questions for them and I would want answers.

Your not getting the seriousnss of sin and the seriousness of disobeying God. And God has spoken to us through Jesus. God doesnt show himself to us because he doesnt want to force us to come to him. Can you force someone to love you? No. God wants us to love him so he doesnt force us. Because thats not what love is.


2) if I loved someone and they wanted nothing to do with me, I would be sad. But to sentence them to eternal torture is unthinkable and monstrous. God is not "honoring" any choice by sending you to a lake of fire. That's completely disingenuous. If he was going to honor that choice he could probably find somewhere for us nonbelievers to go that didn't include being tortured for eternity.

Ok I think at this point I should clear up some misunderstandings about hell. Firstly, hell as a place where people are sent is the wrong idea. Hell is a natural result of sin. Its like dropping a ball. It will hit the ground unless something stops it. In the same way, a human who has sinned will automatically go to hell unless something is done to stop them. Thats where Jesus's death comes in. If you accept salvation via Jesus's death, God stops you falling into hell. Hence the phrase "saved". Secondly, hell was not originally for humans. Hell was a place created for the rebel angels that Lucifer stirred up as a punishment for them. In the same way though that Lucifer rebelled against God by wanting it all, so humans have rebelled against God by sining. Hell is simpley a place for those who rebel aginst God. Thirdly, there is some question as to what exactly hell is. Now the idea of it being somewhere where God actively takes part in the torment of those in it is un-biblical. It may be that it is simpley everywhere that heaven isnt, and because heaven is so amazingly wonderfully brilliant, not being part of it is torment. It may also be earth without God sustaining it, some would argue that things like the Electro-magnetic field wont be there when the end times have come and gone, for example. As a result Earth will be a much much nastier place, and will indeed resemble hell.

So that you can ask that question.

Revel in it; it's a beautiful question. ;)

It's not. It's an awful one. I would give up every bit of free will I had if I knew that people around the world wouldn't suffer and die. I don't see how anyone could say differently.

And anyway, it's a false free will. You can make choices, but if you make the wrong one you will be punished. If you make the choice not to be a christian you will be punished eternally.

Sounds good to me... I have been researching the issue for about a decade and a half, so I'd be interested to see what source you have that YOU think reliable...

The earliest independent corroboration of the life (or death) of the man they call Christ, is Josephus' account, from most of a century later than the alleged crucifixion.

And, many experts believe that the 'Jesus' parts of Josephus' work were added later than that.

I would be very interested to see actual evidence of the provable crucifixion of the man they called Christ.

well if you really are interested, the books I mentioned by Lee Strobel are very good. He interviews many experts and gives a lengthy bibliography of where he gets his own answers as well as usually a list of books and papers written by the experts that he interviews. Those books are chalked full of sources to find real and factual evidence. I'll see what else I can find on top of those.

The books are called The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator.

Strobel was the legal editor for the Chicago Tribune and an atheist. When his wife decided to be saved, he set out to disprove Christ. He used his newspaper skills to get the "real scoop" and now he's a minister.

It's not. It's an awful one. I would give up every bit of free will I had if I knew that people around the world wouldn't suffer and die. I don't see how anyone could say differently.

And anyway, it's a false free will. You can make choices, but if you make the wrong one you will be punished. If you make the choice not to be a christian you will be punished eternally.
Wait a minute! This somehow makes it hard not to be a christian! WHOA! I mean, hold the phone, you heard it here first folks.


(har har sarcasm :rolleyes:)

since our free will is the reason for all of our AND his suffering, why is it better for us to have free will than it would for us not to.


How would it be if you could somehow control the mind of a girl you loved to the point at which you forced her to love you. Would it be real love? No because you forced her to do it. Real love comes from a choice, not forced. You cant force someone to love you for the same reason you cant have a four sided triangle. Because thats not what the word means. God wants us to love him for real. He didnt create a race of mindless automotauns who loved him because they were programed to. He created a race of people who could think freely and love him because they wanted to, not because they had to.

Your not getting the seriousnss of sin and the seriousness of disobeying God. And God has spoken to us through Jesus. God doesnt show himself to us because he doesnt want to force us to come to him. Can you force someone to love you? No. God wants us to love him so he doesnt force us. Because thats not what love is.

So no force, just the threat of eternal torture. That's better. I would rather have the force thank you.

If you love someone and their love in return was so important, why would you act like a petulant adolescent and wait for them to hunt you down. That makes no sense at all. And that wouldn't be force. That would be giving me a chance and not forcing me to make a guess.



Ok I think at this point I should clear up some misunderstandings about hell. Firstly, hell as a place where people are sent is the wrong idea. Hell is a natural result of sin. Its like dropping a ball. It will hit the ground unless something stops it. In the same way, a human who has sinned will automatically go to hell unless something is done to stop them. Thats where Jesus's death comes in. If you accept salvation via Jesus's death, God stops you falling into hell. Hence the phrase "saved". Secondly, hell was not originally for humans. Hell was a place created for the rebel angels that Lucifer stirred up as a punishment for them. In the same way though that Lucifer rebelled against God by wanting it all, so humans have rebelled against God by sining. Hell is simpley a place for those who rebel aginst God. Thirdly, there is some question as to what exactly hell is. Now the idea of it being somewhere where God actively takes part in the torment of those in it is un-biblical. It may be that it is simpley everywhere that heaven isnt, and because heaven is so amazingly wonderfully brilliant, not being part of it is torment. It may also be earth without God sustaining it, some would argue that things like the Electro-magnetic field wont be there when the end times have come and gone, for example. As a result Earth will be a much much nastier place, and will indeed resemble hell.

But doesn't everyone sin? It follows that it's impossible not to sin. So our natural place is in hell. God made everything, so therefore in god's order we belong in hell. God doesn't really love us.

How would it be if you could somehow control the mind of a girl you loved to the point at which you forced her to love you. Would it be real love? No because you forced her to do it. Real love comes from a choice, not forced. You cant force someone to love you for the same reason you cant have a four sided triangle. Because thats not what the word means. God wants us to love him for real. He didnt create a race of mindless automotauns who loved him because they were programed to. He created a race of people who could think freely and love him because they wanted to, not because they had to.

Well, I would totally do it. But that's beside the point.

To continue your analogy, I would tell a friend to write the girl a letter saying that I loved her, but I wasn't going to talk to her until she came and found me. If she didn't come and find me, then I would kill her.

And anyway, it's a false free will. You can make choices, but if you make the wrong one you will be punished. If you make the choice not to be a christian you will be punished eternally.

Is that any more or less free will like when you have the ability to drive at over 30 MPH but if you do you are given a fine? In freedom there is always a path not taken.

Its not a punishment, its a natural result. If I go to atempt to save a drowning man but he refuses my help, and even when I do atempt to help him he fights me off, am I punishing him by letting him go in the end?

The idea that there is only one possible outcome to a scenario is incompatible with the idea of an omnipotent god. And ominipotent god could change the outcome to anything.

sure He could change it. But He won't change it because He promised otherwise. He gave us the bible to tell us how to get through it all. He made ONE change and that was sending His Son down to save us all (that wasn't really a change since He prophesied the coming of Jesus, it was part of the original plan). It remains unchanging so that we can follow and understand. Changing it would be like the guy unplugging the runway lights in the movie Airplane and yelling JUST KIDDING!

Show me some evidence. Cite your source.

Something contemporary, something independent like that - if it existed - would be a worthy piece of evidence.

Unfortunately, I believe you have very likely been deceived.

Grave, I'm a little disappointed. You don't seem like the fish in a barrel type. Also, given you know how to make so much more reasonable arguments against God than are being presented here, I would expect you to be shaming these guys, much as I've pointed out the folly of the argument on my side. For the most part, this thread has completely degraded into, yah-huh, nuh-uh, yah-huh, nuh-uh.

I was out of the office for a few hours and I'm disappointed I wasn't around to try to reign it in.

Is that any more or less free will like when you have the ability to drive at over 30 MPH but if you do you are given a fine? In freedom there is always a path not taken.

Its not a punishment, its a natural result. If I go to atempt to save a drowning man but he refuses my help, and even when I do atempt to help him he fights me off, am I punishing him by letting him go in the end?

No but it would be pretty cruel of you to have pushed him into the water in the first place. Especially if you made the water and him and created gravity and refused to give him gills.

also, if you had the power to pull him out of the water anyway, you would do it if you loved him.

We strap our kids in the car because we want them alive. We attempt to avoid their falling down the stairs for the same reason. Some mistakes are necessary. Some injuries have to occur. If you raise a child in a vacuum where nothing ever goes wrong, that child never learns to take care of itself. That child never learns to avoid dangerous situations.
If the child never sees wrong, it will never the difference between right and wrong. When THIS child grows up and is out on its own, it is a hopeless human being with no ability to think on its own, avoid problems on its own, or ever choose correctly between right and wrong.

God doesn't punish us for eternity because we do something He frowns upon. Hell was not made for man, it was made for Lucifer and his demons. We have the choice. We can have a relationship with Him, or we can refuse to have one. If you choose during your life to refuse that relationship, then God honors that choice by separating you from Him after you die. There is only one place God will not be when that time comes.

Ok, so god creates natural disasters - directly or indirectly - but proper parents try to prevent their children from falling down stairs...

Or is it that proper parents makes sure their kids do fall down stairs, but sometimes survive it, or forces them to watch other children fall down stairs... In a bit to teach them about mortality?
Show me parents like that that people wouldn't string up in the nearest lamppost. I mean it. But when god pulls stunts like this, it's done out of love and a desire to teach us useful things that will better our lives?!


And god loves me enough to damn me to hell for not believing in it?
I suppose I should have set my old boyfriend on fire when he left me too? I still love him after all... Sort of disturbing then, that I'd much rather see him happy than torched, innit?!
Just like parent's don't usually torture their children while they become teens. Ungodly behaviour that. After all, what teen ever believed his/her parents?

Anyway, I really look forward to be tortured for eternity, for failing to believe in god. Such a nice nice god it is.
Oh but maybe you think I deserve eternal agony for beliving your invisible friend is a pile of shite. Is that it?


About your origin of life argument: No, the first rule of thermodynamics does not apply. Earth is not a closed system.

No, evolution is no explanation for live, it's a theory of what life is doing - biology, not chemestry.

No, ID is not science. It's not fallible, so forget using the S word. And no, it's not at all credible, and I've yet to see a good amount of people in the field take it seriously (or even just not laugh at it).

No, evolution theory isn't anywhere near as uncertain as you make it sound. That evolution takes place and have taken place for millions of years isn't really refutable at this point.

There have been numerous threads about ID vs. Evolution. Search for it. Plenty of solid factual evidence have been posted, along with thorough explanations.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're fast decending into the moronic now.

How would she know who 'god' was?

She walked in the garden with him? And a few weeks ago a girl disappeared from a nightclub in a high-profile incident... and yet, she had wlaked places with people...

How well does that mean one knows someone?

They had no way TO know who 'god' was. They hadn't learned about sex yet, so they wouldn't have understood 'father'... all they could have known is that this bloke kept walking the gardens... and that he was very bossy.

You are trying to change what Adam or Eve COULD have known, based on knowledge YOU have.

You're forgetting Adam had witnessed who God was. Adam knew Him. God created Eve. So she had God walking around telling her and she also had Adam to attest to it.

So no force, just the threat of eternal torture. That's better. I would rather have the force thank you.

If you love someone and their love in return was so important, why would you act like a petulant adolescent and wait for them to hunt you down. That makes no sense at all. And that wouldn't be force. That would be giving me a chance and not forcing me to make a guess.

God has come to us, Jesus came to earth, you seem to ignore this.


But doesn't everyone sin? It follows that it's impossible not to sin. So our natural place is in hell. God made everything, so therefore in god's order we belong in hell. God doesn't really love us.

Thats what Jesus's death was for. We did all deserve death after we had sinned, the wages of sin are death. But Jesus hadnt sinned and still died, and then rose again. The cycle was broken, sin no longer needs to lead to hell. If you just accept Jesus's salvation, you can have eternal life in heaven. God does love us, otherwise he wouldnt have sent his son to die for us so we could live with him. God doenst want anyone to go to hell, but the Devil wants everyone to go to hell, because he doesnt want to be alone at the end, misery loves company. God loves us all, which is why Jesus died, so we could be saved.

Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

You've said all this "He does not interfer" before. So choose.
God:
"Not Omnipotent*" or "A mean prick.**"

*Because he can't fix starvation in Africa
**Because he won't fix starvation in Africa

how about He expects US to fix it.

But then we're back to square one. He could give us happiness (or at least an absence of suffering) and a comprehension of happiness, and keep us from acting like spoiled children, and create us so that we WANT what he wants, and all of these things and he doesn't. That is incompatible with his supposed love for us.

yes He could do all that. But then we'd have the absense of free will.

Then he suffers only to make us feel guilty, which leads to the "why is God such a mean prick" question.
Do you feel guilty?

No but it would be pretty cruel of you to have pushed him into the water in the first place. Especially if you made the water and him and created gravity and refused to give him gills.

Stop twisting my analogy. The man (humans) is the one who fell in because he triped (sinned). Another person (God) can save them by offering out there hand (Jesus's death) but the drowning person can only be pulled out of the water if he grabs his hand (accepts salvation). The person attempting to save him cant force him to take his hand (God doesnt breach free will) so he has to do it himself.

This is totally true because like the bible says so and all the people I know says so.

(The bible is totally radically OLD)

Sorry for this sarcasm, but your personal belief isn't really convincing.

sorry for that

Strawman Fallacy. The other poster discussed evolution... and you start talking about 'origins of life'. You are fighting a strawman..

No, I made a comment about the pesky origin of life thingy and the discussion that THIS fell into derived from that. It hadn't a thing to do with the other guy's evolution talk.



Evidence? Cite a scource? I think you are confused... from what I recall of the Cambrian Explosion, the idea is that there is a sudden burst of complexity... which is NOT the same as complex life forms all appearing, fully formed, at the same time..

again, I don't have the sources with me, I'm at work. I don't normally carry them around.



Jesus is not as 'proven' as you might like to think. The only CONTEMPORARY sources are ALL written by followers, or associates of followers.... so nothing independent.

The first INDEPENDENT sources are Josephus' texts... most of a century later... so nothing CONTEMPORARY.

There is no non-scriptural evidence to support ANYTHING about Jesus.... even that he existed.

And, even if there was an evidence of the life of 'the man they called Christ'... that would do nothing to prove that he was anything but ordinary.

There are also official Roman records.

It's not. It's an awful one. I would give up every bit of free will I had if I knew that people around the world wouldn't suffer and die. I don't see how anyone could say differently.

And anyway, it's a false free will. You can make choices, but if you make the wrong one you will be punished. If you make the choice not to be a christian you will be punished eternally.
Hmm.... That's a very compassionate thing to say, but would you really want to be a mindless automaton? If you were, how would you know that you had succeeded?

How does being punished for making the wrong choice falsify free will? :confused:

You have free will, and can exercise it to not believe in god.

Ok, so god creates natural disasters - directly or indirectly - but proper parents try to prevent their children from falling down stairs...

Or is it that proper parents makes sure their kids do fall down stairs, but sometimes survive it, or forces them to watch other children fall down stairs... In a bit to teach them about mortality?
Show me parents like that that people wouldn't string up in the nearest lamppost. I mean it. But when god pulls stunts like this, it's done out of love and a desire to teach us useful things that will better our lives?!

And god loves me enough to damn me to hell for not believing in it?
I suppose I should have set my old boyfriend on fire when he left me too? I still love him after all... Sort of disturbing then, that I'd much rather see him happy than torched, innit?!
Just like parent's don't usually torture their children while they become teens. Ungodly behaviour that. After all, what teen ever believed his/her parents?

Anyway, I really look forward to be tortured for eternity, for failing to believe in god. Such a nice nice god it is.
Oh but maybe you think I deserve eternal agony for beliving your invisible friend is a pile of shite. Is that it?

God does love you, so he gave you a way out of going to hell. Thats why Jesus died. Also, as we have already discussed, hell is not God sending you there. You would go to hell as a result of sin, you dont go to hell because of Jesus's death.



About your origin of life argument: No, the first rule of thermodynamics does not apply. Earth is not a closed system.

No, evolution is no explanation for live, it's a theory of what life is doing - biology, not chemestry.

No, ID is not science. It's not fallible, so forget using the S word. And no, it's not at all credible, and I've yet to see a good amount of people in the field take it seriously (or even just not laugh at it).

No, evolution theory isn't anywhere near as uncertain as you make it sound. That evolution takes place and have taken place for millions of years isn't really refutable at this point.

There have been numerous threads about ID vs. Evolution. Search for it. Plenty of solid factual evidence have been posted, along with thorough explanations.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're fast decending into the moronic now.

I dont want to thread-jack but evolution fails to explain itself fully in several areas

- There are no recorded examples of any life form gaining genetic infomation. There are examples of genetic infomation changing but not life forms getting new infomation that adds on to exsisting infomation

- There are examples of cell cultures found in isolated areas with no exposures to antibiotics previously who are none the less resistant. Thus showing that the antibiotic resistance may not be a reaction to a circumstance, but merely genetic code that is already there.

- Numberous species links can be said to be shakey at best, for example the link between scales and feathers is extremely circumspect.

I liked the comparison with parenting. But I find it hopelessly flawed. After all, we're talking about god here.

So to make the analogy more accurate, answer me this:

Why do people do things like forcing their children to wear seatbelts in the car?
Why do people try their very best to make sure their children don't acdidentially fall down stairs, climb into the oven or whatever?
Why don't people thrash their children to within an inch of their life repeatedly, when the children does something the parents frowns on?

God seems to do the exact opposite to us. He makes an unsafe environment that often kills through no fault of it's inhabitants.
He deals out never-ending punishment for things we can't really help.

I mean, I couldn't believe in god even if I wanted to. It's like asking me to believe in ghostbusters. And the punishment is neverending and unbearable?!

Likeable bloke that god of yours. Really...

If have a gymnastics team and I work them out hard. They may end up sore the next day. They may get hurt. It's even possible for them to die. Now I have all of these soft mats. I could just wrap them up in cotton and let them take naps. Certainly they'll never be hurt or die if I do the latter, so it must be the more loving thing to do, no?

You want to compare God to humans, which I think is silly, then how's that?

Now, you counter with, but God could just make us better stronger atheletes if He wanted to or the other choice is what are we traing FOR?

I counter with then what would be the point to the first one or I don't know to the second one (which is the answer to what would be the point as well). And there you have it. You've proven that I don't know all of the motivations of God, but it certainly doesn't prove that he's unloving.

I hold that you can't understand joy without pain, happiness without sadness, that our minds need contrast and we get contrast. I find people who live through hardship to be generally happier than the people who have never wanted for anything.

So are you convinced? Of course not. Surprisingly, nothing you've said has convinced me.

So reasonably, why do I believe what I believe? Why can't I explain it to you? And the truth is there are two answers - one I don't believe faith can be proved or it would just be called knowledge. Two, you aren't actually listening to what I have to say. No one here is listening to each other anymore. Grave and I had a wonderful, respectful and intelligent conversation where we both left knowing more about each other if nothing else. This thing that you all are doing is a squabble and you're purpose isn't to enlighten yourself or others. So keep stepping on the ants and calling yourself king of the anthill if it makes you feel big. I find the whole thing to be pretty useless.

Don't even joke. Intelligent design is only taking over because in the increasingly rightist America it pays more to sell out to the conservative movement and provide evidence for what they want to hear instead of providing evidence for what is actually true. It's also only taking over because Christians are pushing to get it into schools, when it's not actually a scientific theory with any evidence at all, but one person's guess as good as anyone else's. Evolution, however, even if not considered the source of all life, is extremely, strongly, proven. Evolution has been and is happening, undeniably, so it should be taught in schools. There is overwhelming evidence in fossil records of the gradual changes of organisms over the millennia, also known as evolution. That's something I consider separate from the issue of where people came from.

the fossil record shows no such thing. There is NO evidence of gradual changes. Ever hear of the missing link? Its still missing.

Edit: Sorry, I was answering the intelligent design person, obviously. I suspect good and evil are social constructs, but that's not to say some things don't feel right and some things don't feel wrong, and I don't ignore those feelings.

And is bombing London really so evil if the people doing it are showing the bystanders of global oppression how they feel? The fact is, we first-worlders are letting our governments do horrible things to peoples afar. To call all violence evil is silly and doesn't take the context into consideration. I don't think self-defense is evil at all, only unpleasant. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want to be blown to pieces, and I think it's horrible that this is the only way people can get through to us, but I am saying I want every single western government and corporation out of the middle east so that kind of thing doesn't have to happen anymore.)

I don't even want to read anything by anyone who believes bombing London is acceptable and good by ANY standards. Bombing London was not self-defense. The women and children in London weren't attakcing the terrorists. ITs the other way around. And that kind of stuff WAS happening BEFORE western gov't and corps were there.

They had no way TO know who 'god' was. They hadn't learned about sex yet, so they wouldn't have understood 'father'...
That's not in Genesis; it says nothing about not knowing about sex, and in fact, it does say that Eve's punishment was an increase in childbirthing pains (Genesis 3:16). It does say they did not know shame (making nudity a moral issue).

groooan...this is exactly where we started.

since our free will is the reason for all of our AND his suffering, why is it better for us to have free will than it would for us not to.

You realize you have made a completely circular argument.

coming back full circle is the answer. all the questions you asked brought you back to the answer you started with.

If we did not have free will, we'd be robots. Is that what you'd prefer?

I'm a Christian, but am I the only one who is finding these arguments to be helping the other side more than Christians? Strobel has been thoroughly debunked. His pseudo-science wouldn't pass the burden of scientific that most philosophy majors would hold him to, let alone scientists.

The Cambrian explosion is nothing like what you described, and doesn't fit with creation either as it happened before the Earth was supposed to exist.

The earliest known explanation for the beginning of Life is not in the Bible, many religions existed long before Judaism and nearly all had an estimation for the beginning of Earth, Time, the universe, etc.

Please, oh, please, stop talking. You're hurting more than you're helping.

For everyone else, debunking the wild theories of someone who clearly doesn't understand them is not evidence that God does not exist or is unloving.

Strobel hasn't been debunked. And he isn't a scientist so "his science" doesn't make sense. He spoke with leading scientist from every major university in the world and got his answers.

Its sad to hear so many can out right deny the exisitence of God. one day it will be too late and you will realize God does exist, but after death there are no more chances. Islam broke off from Judaism "Ishmael' Christianity was to REPLACE the jewish religion but the jews rejected Jesus the Son of God and crucified him. i just dont see how you can look out off a mountain , alll of creation , and still doubt. also i wouldnt put much stock in the left behind authors either. because their beliefs about the events of the 'end times are so off base its not even funny. yes people believe those things but not all of us. and the catholic church isnt 'The Church' it broke off from the New Testament Church,, evident in the fact that the catholic church isnt true in all aspects of its teaching.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" John 3:16

The authors of Left Behind wrote a fictional story based on prophesy. However they also wrote a non-fiction book based on prophesy. They have studied biblical prophesy for over 25 years. I wouldn't discount them so quickly because they may have taken a few artistic licenses with their fictional story.

Your not getting the seriousnss of sin and the seriousness of disobeying God. And God has spoken to us through Jesus. God doesnt show himself to us because he doesnt want to force us to come to him. Can you force someone to love you? No. God wants us to love him so he doesnt force us. Because thats not what love is.



Ok I think at this point I should clear up some misunderstandings about hell. Firstly, hell as a place where people are sent is the wrong idea. Hell is a natural result of sin. Its like dropping a ball. It will hit the ground unless something stops it. In the same way, a human who has sinned will automatically go to hell unless something is done to stop them. Thats where Jesus's death comes in. If you accept salvation via Jesus's death, God stops you falling into hell. Hence the phrase "saved". Secondly, hell was not originally for humans. Hell was a place created for the rebel angels that Lucifer stirred up as a punishment for them. In the same way though that Lucifer rebelled against God by wanting it all, so humans have rebelled against God by sining. Hell is simpley a place for those who rebel aginst God. Thirdly, there is some question as to what exactly hell is. Now the idea of it being somewhere where God actively takes part in the torment of those in it is un-biblical. It may be that it is simpley everywhere that heaven isnt, and because heaven is so amazingly wonderfully brilliant, not being part of it is torment. It may also be earth without God sustaining it, some would argue that things like the Electro-magnetic field wont be there when the end times have come and gone, for example. As a result Earth will be a much much nastier place, and will indeed resemble hell.

I think of it as Hell is a place where God isn't. God will be gone from it and so will all His goodness (which is all of it). Now think of a city where there is no goodness whatsoever. That is what hell is to me.

Strobel hasn't been debunked. And he isn't a scientist so "his science" doesn't make sense. He spoke with leading scientist from every major university in the world and got his answers.

He makes the claim that his arguments are scientific evidence which is why he uses scientists. It has been shown that he misrepresented their credentials in some cases, that he misrepresented their responses in others, in still others he quite simply didn't ask the obvious followup questions, in yet others he asked questions like 'when did you stop beating your children' (if you've never heard that example before, it's a loaded question). His arguments are specious and ridiculous. He makes huge leaps in logic that you could drive a truck through, often completely misses the point and other times completely misrepresents the point. And this is from someone who believes in both God and the Savior. It is quite simply a ridiculous book that represents one of the flimsiest arguments for faith that I've seen save this thread.

I'm going to add this having read pretty much only the first 10 or so postings, and the last 10 or so postings.

As a Buddhist (Jodo Shinshu, for those wanting specifics), God isn't an either or issue. For most Buddhists, the existance of gods or spirits or deities simply doesn't matter. Buddhism teaches its followers not to accept anything unless they've experienced it themselves and know it to be true, and my particular sect strongly discourages reliance upon deities or prayers or magic as a path to truth.

I'm not saying Buddhism is correct and Christianity is wrong; there are many Christian thinkers whose work I admire tremendously and who have had a great deal of influence on my religious thinking. But I'm deeply suspicious of any religion - Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or anything else - that tries to tell me it's the only path and that everything else is false. Especially those religions that have to rely on fear tactics such as hell, or miracles to try and establish their credibility and power.

Over time, Buddhism has certainly acquired its own share of these things (the legends that have grown up around the birth of the Buddha are a ready example of this) but for those who really want to delve deep, there is great freedom to discard the frills and focus on what you understand to be true. Buddhism, unlike most religions, also understands that it too will die out someday and be replaced by something else.

I don't believe too many other religions espouse that particular viewpoint.

He makes the claim that his arguments are scientific evidence which is why he uses scientists. It has been shown that he misrepresented their credentials in some cases, that he misrepresented their responses in others, in still others he quite simply didn't ask the obvious followup questions, in yet others he asked questions like 'when did you stop beating your children' (if you've never heard that example before, it's a loaded question). His arguments are specious and ridiculous. He makes huge leaps in logic that you could drive a truck through, often completely misses the point and other times completely misrepresents the point. And this is from someone who believes in both God and the Savior. It is quite simply a ridiculous book that represents one of the flimsiest arguments for faith that I've seen save this thread.

Since most of Strobel's books dont deal with science, but with history, I suggest you re-read them.

ok, well its time to fly. I had fun, everyone have a good weekend!

Since most of Strobel's books dont deal with science, but with history, I suggest you re-read them.

You do realize that this history relies on archeology which is a science, no? His theories must be held to the same standards as any other scientific text as he makes the argument that his book is in fact scientific. Otherwise, why was he interviewing 'top' scientists?

He does quite obviously misrepresent the facts, which is thoroughly frowned upon in both history and science, no? But not by religion? Oh, wait, we do have that one little commandment about lying, don't we?

Moreover, is the best argument you can make against what I said, "It's not science, it's history"? Perhaps so.

I'm not happy with the site I found this source on, but it cites the source material verbatim. It's written by an author who has attacked illogical support and attacks on Christianity. In other words, he prefers reason on both sides of the argument.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

God does love you, so he gave you a way out of going to hell. Thats why Jesus died. Also, as we have already discussed, hell is not God sending you there. You would go to hell as a result of sin, you dont go to hell because of Jesus's death.

Ok, let's see...
God makes hell. The worst, most inhumane place that can ever exist.
He also makes humans.
Right off, he damns every single human there ever will be, to go to hell. The only execptions is for devout Jews.
Later on, he changes the rules a little, so now everyone who doesn't reject Jesus & god escapes hell.

And now this eerily quiet god, which for all I know doesn't exists at all, expects me to love him unconditionally. And if I don't, his unconditional love and benevolence sends me to hell. Granted, the rule that sends me there is 2000 years old, give or take, but it's still one he made.
That, my friend, is what I call evil. In fact, if this god person doesn't love me enough to judge me for the way I live instead of whether I believe in him, he can go to hell.
But hey, I don't believe in god, so it really doesn't keep me awake at night. It does however concern me a bit that Christians don't think god is evil if they believe in hell.

I dont want to thread-jack but evolution fails to explain itself fully in several areas

Yea, I didn't mean to start a debate about it either. Reviving a dead thread or starting a new would be better.

If have a gymnastics team and I work them out hard. They may end up sore the next day. They may get hurt. It's even possible for them to die. Now I have all of these soft mats. I could just wrap them up in cotton and let them take naps. Certainly they'll never be hurt or die if I do the latter, so it must be the more loving thing to do, no?

You want to compare God to humans, which I think is silly, then how's that?

Now, you counter with, but God could just make us better stronger atheletes if He wanted to or the other choice is what are we traing FOR?

I counter with then what would be the point to the first one or I don't know to the second one (which is the answer to what would be the point as well). And there you have it. You've proven that I don't know all of the motivations of God, but it certainly doesn't prove that he's unloving.

I hold that you can't understand joy without pain, happiness without sadness, that our minds need contrast and we get contrast. I find people who live through hardship to be generally happier than the people who have never wanted for anything.

So are you convinced? Of course not. Surprisingly, nothing you've said has convinced me.

So reasonably, why do I believe what I believe? Why can't I explain it to you? And the truth is there are two answers - one I don't believe faith can be proved or it would just be called knowledge. Two, you aren't actually listening to what I have to say. No one here is listening to each other anymore. Grave and I had a wonderful, respectful and intelligent conversation where we both left knowing more about each other if nothing else. This thing that you all are doing is a squabble and you're purpose isn't to enlighten yourself or others. So keep stepping on the ants and calling yourself king of the anthill if it makes you feel big. I find the whole thing to be pretty useless.

Jacobia I'm sorry mate. You do me wrong but I suppose I asked for it. This isn't really a debate as much as it's a bitching contest. I'm new here, and only go on occational posting spree's, so I'm not at all suprised you judge based on what I've posted in this thread. But really, I've just been answering inane dribble in kind.

Of course it's completely moronic to compare the concept of god to parents. But please note I just answered it - like yourself. Hell, trying to project human characteristics on a god is just silly.

You're right that you'll almost certainly never make a believer out of me. I don't expect you to, anymore than I expect you to become an atheist.

You're also right about the king of the anthill bit, but arguably not in the way you think. Very religious people freak me out. You may not notice it, but some people are actually telling people like me that we're going to suffer for all eternity, and that we deserve every second of it. It's close to impossible not to answer such things. It's not the bit about hell, it's that people are so arrogant and (in my mind) evil, that they think we deserve it.

I at least partially agree that people can't really know happiness without having experienced misery. I do not agree that people have to have seen friends or strangers die before their eyes, or known true poverty to know happiness. Although for some people, it would undoubtedly help. Sadly, in my experience, those are always the last people such things happen to. But I do not blame anyone's god for anything, really. Please understand that I do not have any reason to suspect the supernatural exists. Likewise, I'm dead certain natural catastrophies and the like happens because of the laws of the physical world. I've never for a second blamed an earthquake on anyone or anything. And calamities like starvation and civil wars on the African continent I blame us humans for.

I'm always intrugued by faith and like to hear about it, if it goes on in a calm, reasonable and unjudgemental manner. A few people on this forum have already managed to convince me religion isn't inherently dangerous. Of course it doesn't mean I will believe in any of them, but at least I appreciate that it helps some people. That's more than I did a month ago. If you knew me, you'd have noticed I've stopped calling religions a mindfuck.

But like I said, it's hard reading some of the posts here without getting a really sour taste in one's mouth. And it's just easier to tear stupid dribble apart than it is to highten the level of debate. But I'll take a break from this topic for the rest of the day and hope it improves :)

coming back full circle is the answer. all the questions you asked brought you back to the answer you started with.


No actually, it brought me back to the question I started with. Why free will? What is so important about it that humans AND god have to suffer for it? Wouldn't a happy existence be better?

Ok heres an example, God created Man and Women right? What about evolution and the dinosors?

Heres another(this one just pisses me off lol): God is infinitly forgiving right? But he has all men born with oringinal sin?

Oh heres one I like:///////////

Screw it, its your beliefs not mine, Why Am I even posting here.... enjoy yourself..


okay, i'm not someone who argues but i hope i can gives some answers to anyone. i don't claim to know it all, i'm just still studying.

god created man and woman and all creation while allowing them the abillity to evolve. evolution is simply the idea of changing or adapting to one's surroundings, climates, and a need to defend against natural predators.

as for Dinosaurs, it is known by apologestists that dinosaurs did exist before the flood. you can choose to read and cross-referance to book of Job and the creature known as the Laviathin.

original sin is the term given to all sins being born out of the sin made by adam and eve. because of their sin,and because we all come from those begining parent, we are faced with original sin. why did adam and eve sin in the first place? because God wanted them to have a choice instead of forced subjigation; he wanted their love for him to be original and authentic: their choice.

original sin is the term given to all sins being born out of the sin made by adam and eve. because of their sin,and because we all come from those begining parent, we are faced with original sin. why did adam and eve sin in the first place? because God wanted them to have a choice instead of forced subjigation; he wanted their love for him to be original and authentic: their choice.

Well if it was their choice why were we all screwed by it?

Well if it was their choice why were we all screwed by it?

Sin gets passed down the line through procreation. The theory is that the sin penalty is only passed down the paternal line, which is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin to live a sinless life.

Sin gets passed down the line through procreation. The theory is that the sin penalty is only passed down the paternal line, which is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin to live a sinless life.

Great so I was born with sins I never comitted, yay for me.

No actually, it brought me back to the question I started with. Why free will? What is so important about it that humans AND god have to suffer for it? Wouldn't a happy existence be better?


from what i can tell, existance created only to be happy would also be fake. unrealized of full potential to one's capacity for feelings and thinkings and growth.

Great so I was born with sins I never comitted, yay for me.

No. You were born with the tendancy to sin. You don't automatically sin, but it is so easy to do so that you just sin. You just do it, no matter who you are.

If sinning is second nature to people, and people were created in God's image, would it not be logical to conclude that God himself, possesses a sinning nature as well?

If it started with Eve, when she ate the apple, should not God, in his infinite wisdom, known what the inevitable outcome?
If he did, why where they punished?
You dont punish a pig for wallowing in the mud, do you?
Its what the pig does naturally.

If sinning is second nature to people, and people were created in God's image, would it not be logical to conclude that God himself, possesses a sinning nature as well?

If it started with Eve, when she ate the apple, should not God, in his infinite wisdom, known what the inevitable outcome?
If he did, why where they punished?
You dont punish a pig for wallowing in the mud, do you?
Its what the pig does naturally.

Humans created in God's image doesn't mean that we are gods. We are imperfect compared to God, and the tendancy to sin is one of the crucial imperfections.

God did know that humans were going to sin. But "knowing" and "punishing" are two seperate actions and can be indepedent. You know something, and then you get to choose whether to act upon the knowledge or not. God chose to.

Pigs are souless. Let them wallow in stuff worse than mud.

Humans created in God's image doesn't mean that we are gods. We are imperfect compared to God, and the tendancy to sin is one of the crucial imperfections.

God did know that humans were going to sin. But "knowing" and "punishing" are two seperate actions and can be indepedent. You know something, and then you get to choose whether to act upon the knowledge or not. God chose to.

Pigs are souless. Let them wallow in stuff worse than mud.


If we are truly flawed. then why are all of God's creations flawed?

As for Eve....if you put a item on a high shelf, and tell a child not to touch it, especially of its bright and shiny, like an apple..what will happen?

I put forth the idea, that it ws not Eve's misdoing, but Gods.

If we are truly flawed. then why are all of God's creations flawed?

As for Eve....if you put a item on a high shelf, and tell a child not to touch it, especially of its bright and shiny, like an apple..what will happen?

I put forth the idea, that it ws not Eve's misdoing, but Gods.

God's creations are not all flawed. For example, the natural world is in perfect balance. As for humans, we were created in His IMAGE. But not given His divinity. If you mean "perfect" as being an exact likeness of God, then, no, humans are not perfect.

God's creations are not all flawed. For example, the natural world is in perfect balance. As for humans, we were created in His IMAGE. But not given His divinity. If you mean "perfect" as being an exact likeness of God, then, no, humans are not perfect.


I say Humanity is indeed very flawed, if not, there would be no need for a "Saviour" would there?

Knowing this...as humanity is the dominant species on this world, we are continually destroying any "perfect balance" in the natural order, even down to the environment we need to survive.

In fact, its an inevitability that humanity will be the earths undoing.

Destined for failure.
The fault would lie with the manufacturer.

I say Humanity is indeed very flawed, if not, there would be no need for a "Saviour" would there?

Knowing this...as humanity is the dominant species on this world, we are continually destroying any "perfect balance" in the natural order, even down to the environment we need to survive.

In fact, its an inevitability that humanity will be the earths undoing.

Destined for failure.
The fault would lie with the manufacturer.

Humanity is indeed flawed, or else there would be no sin.

We were supposed to have been ruling our planet and preserving it. I'd say we've done both preserving and destroying.

Sin is Earth's undoing. The world will end because we sinned.

No. Ford makes the perfect car. However, it breaks down because the buyer doesn't give a damn about the instructions. Who's fault?

D00ds

This needs to be brought up

Religion is a FAITH based institution. 'K people have relgious beliefs based on faith, that how its supposed to work. I belive religion can be logically proved, but the nature of religion is to provide basic moral and ethical judgement and answer 3 fundamental questions/why are we here, is there an afterlife/ and where did we come from. I.E. Buddhism is not considered a philosophy as it does not inspect athesitcs nor is it considered a religion 'cause it doesn't answer those questions, its only considered one, 'cause so many peoples practise it.

Science is emprical that is based on observation and tangible evidence. Science is built on arriving at truth through careful reseach and observation.

These are 2 different thing comparing Religion to Science is comparing apples to oranges. They can work together but they arrive at truth differently, one through data and one through faith.

For teh peeps that say God tortures us in hell; nothing could be farther from the truth. We send ourselves to hell. Because J.C. died on the cross for us we are all saved, its up to us whether we accept that salvation or not. Its 'cause God loves us so much he lets us go to hell. He won't force us to live with him in heaven, he respects our decision not to spend eternity with him.

Thats my 2 cents.

Humanity is indeed flawed, or else there would be no sin.

We were supposed to have been ruling our planet and preserving it. I'd say we've done both preserving and destroying.

"Nonsense!", he said with a grin...
Species of flora and fauna go extinct everyday. Acres of precious rain forest and natural habitat are slashed and burned every day. We have never done anything of note to preserve our world, but rather, be the instrument of its demise.

Sin is Earth's undoing. The world will end because we sinned.
No..some lunatic will push the *Boom* button. Thats a human thing.

No. Ford makes the perfect car. However, it breaks down because the buyer doesn't give a damn about the instructions. Who's fault?

I assure you, there is no such thing as the perfect car.
A perfect car would never break down...be powered by a clean, renewable source, and would never get into an accident, or get stuck in traffic.

The reality is much different.
Much as a car operates within its intended parameters, so too, do we people, according to the christian ideaology.

God created us to sin.

For teh peeps that say God tortures us in hell; nothing could be farther from the truth. We send ourselves to hell. Because J.C. died on the cross for us we are all saved, its up to us whether we accept that salvation or not. Its 'cause God loves us so much he lets us go to hell. He won't force us to live with him in heaven, he respects our decision not to spend eternity with him.

Thats my 2 cents.

If god loves us and wants the wellbeing of our eternal soul to be our decision, why not make known his existence? At least to those who are willing to open their hearts to him.

D00ds

This needs to be brought up

I.E. Buddhism is not considered a philosophy as it does not inspect athesitcs nor is it considered a religion 'cause it doesn't answer those questions, its only considered one, 'cause so many peoples practise it.


Thats my 2 cents.

Heres mine:

If you dont think that Bhuddism is, or should be considered a religion, even though it has millions of followers...you need some serious education.

Many people "practiSe" masturbation.
Would that qualify as a religion to you?

Many people "practiSe" masturbation.
Would that qualify as a religion to you?

What does masturbation have to do wth religion by his standards?

What does masturbation have to do wth religion by his standards?


He says that the only reason Bhuddism is considered a religion, is becuase so many people practice it.

Therefore, by his logic...masturbation must be a religion too.

He says that the only reason Bhuddism is considered a religion, is becuase so many people practice it.

Therefore, by his logic...masturbation must be a religion too.

I get what you're saying, but he probably didn't mean exactly what he said.

I get what you're saying, but he probably didn't mean exactly what he said.

No, he probably didnt.
But if he believes that Bhuddism isnt a religion...how good can anything he says truly be?

Lame logic is easily broken.

Holy crap... wow.
Excellent arguements. I was thinking the same thing as in some of the earlier posts.
I lost my faith when I was secretly looking at a film of a missions trip. I was thinking, "why are they keeping these secret?" I watched it, and was horrified.
It was in some third world country. I was and still am unfamiliar with what language they spoke. My youth pastor(I only went to youth group because my whole family is athiest, but my parents raised me to choose by myself, they didn't force me to believe anything) came out, and started speaking their language. On and on this went. I fast forwarded... the whole tape was him teaching english.
I moved to the next tape. This was a couple weeks later, according to the date at the bottom. Amazingly, the man now spoke semi-fluent English. By now I already pitied him because that meant my pastor was drilling him and loading him with so much knowledge.
As if that wasn't bad enough, the man refused to accept christianity. I respected that, understood it, and let it pass.
My pastor didnt. THey began to fought. The man was so outraged he was speaking his own language again. For a second my pastor blocked the camera, and then disappeared. Seconda passed, my pastor came out with a 2x4 and beat the man to death.
I watched him suffer and die. Had this not been a movie I'd have killed the pastor and be in juvie now, as I would have committed a "sinful" kill.

You think that christians are pure? You think it's a good thing to go on missions trips and take people out of their homes and force them to be like you? How is that better when the Pilgrims left England because their king forced religon upon them?
I hope this post brings serious knowledge of the real world to you people, instead of looking upon your own type with rose-tinted glasses.

Now, you wanted to tell me christians are of purer heart than athiests?

Ok, let's see...
God makes hell. The worst, most inhumane place that can ever exist.

We haven't established he "made" hell. As has been stated, hell could be simpley everywhere that hell isnt, and it merely seems to be as terrible and horrible as it is because of the comparision to the wonderfulness of heaven.


He also makes humans.
Right off, he damns every single human there ever will be, to go to hell. The only execptions is for devout Jews.
Later on, he changes the rules a little, so now everyone who doesn't reject Jesus & god escapes hell.

Essentially yes, but its a little more than that. His love for his creation is so complete and wonderful and he is in such pain to see it falling apart the way it is through sin that he sends another act of great love to deal with the problem of sin.


And now this eerily quiet god, which for all I know doesn't exists at all, expects me to love him unconditionally. And if I don't, his unconditional love and benevolence sends me to hell. Granted, the rule that sends me there is 2000 years old, give or take, but it's still one he made.

Its not "a rule he made" as you put it. Its to do with the nature of sin and the nature of God. Because of who God is and because of what sin is that the seriousness of the situation exists. Your failing to apreciate either of those. And God has talked to us all, through the Bible. If you dont read it or examine it you cant say that he isnt talking to you.


That, my friend, is what I call evil. In fact, if this god person doesn't love me enough to judge me for the way I live instead of whether I believe in him, he can go to hell.


God sent his son to die for the world. It is the greatest act of love the world has ever known, and it was done to save you personally, as well as me personally and every other human. If you choose to just ignore it you are basicly ignoring God's action. He cant force you to love him. As for your point on actions, to live a life thats "good" enough to get you to heaven, you would have to lead a sinless life. But thats virtually impossible for humans, which is why God sent Jesus.

Holy crap... wow.
Excellent arguements. I was thinking the same thing as in some of the earlier posts.
I lost my faith when I was secretly looking at a film of a missions trip. I was thinking, "why are they keeping these secret?" I watched it, and was horrified.
It was in some third world country. I was and still am unfamiliar with what language they spoke. My youth pastor(I only went to youth group because my whole family is athiest, but my parents raised me to choose by myself, they didn't force me to believe anything) came out, and started speaking their language. On and on this went. I fast forwarded... the whole tape was him teaching english.
I moved to the next tape. This was a couple weeks later, according to the date at the bottom. Amazingly, the man now spoke semi-fluent English. By now I already pitied him because that meant my pastor was drilling him and loading him with so much knowledge.
As if that wasn't bad enough, the man refused to accept christianity. I respected that, understood it, and let it pass.
My pastor didnt. THey began to fought. The man was so outraged he was speaking his own language again. For a second my pastor blocked the camera, and then disappeared. Seconda passed, my pastor came out with a 2x4 and beat the man to death.
I watched him suffer and die. Had this not been a movie I'd have killed the pastor and be in juvie now, as I would have committed a "sinful" kill.

You think that christians are pure? You think it's a good thing to go on missions trips and take people out of their homes and force them to be like you? How is that better when the Pilgrims left England because their king forced religon upon them?
I hope this post brings serious knowledge of the real world to you people, instead of looking upon your own type with rose-tinted glasses.

Now, you wanted to tell me christians are of purer heart than athiests?

No where in the Bible does it encourage forceful conversions. Now of course there are Christians who use forceful converstions, but there is nothing to biblically support that. Christians never claim to be perfect people, they are just forgiven and are just try to be as good as they can. Of course there are many who fail.

"Nonsense!", he said with a grin...
Species of flora and fauna go extinct everyday. Acres of precious rain forest and natural habitat are slashed and burned every day. We have never done anything of note to preserve our world, but rather, be the instrument of its demise.
We weren't barred from using the natural world...we just have to take care of it. I'll say we've both preserved the world and destroyed some of its tentacles.

But that's okay, cuz evolution will set it all right in the end [/sarcasm]


No..some lunatic will push the *Boom* button. Thats a human thing.
The last time I checked, mass-murdering is a sin. Sinners will push the world to its doom.


I assure you, there is no such thing as the perfect car.
A perfect car would never break down...be powered by a clean, renewable source, and would never get into an accident, or get stuck in traffic.

The reality is much different.
Much as a car operates within its intended parameters, so too, do we people, according to the christian ideaology.
But it will break down if the owner tries to run the car with gasoline. Human souls are seperate, independent and intelligent things from God. We have our body and our world, but we don't listen to the Creator on how to operate it.

God created us to sin.

God created us to worship Him.

Holy crap... wow.
Excellent arguements. I was thinking the same thing as in some of the earlier posts.
I lost my faith when I was secretly looking at a film of a missions trip. I was thinking, "why are they keeping these secret?" I watched it, and was horrified.
It was in some third world country. I was and still am unfamiliar with what language they spoke. My youth pastor(I only went to youth group because my whole family is athiest, but my parents raised me to choose by myself, they didn't force me to believe anything) came out, and started speaking their language. On and on this went. I fast forwarded... the whole tape was him teaching english.
I moved to the next tape. This was a couple weeks later, according to the date at the bottom. Amazingly, the man now spoke semi-fluent English. By now I already pitied him because that meant my pastor was drilling him and loading him with so much knowledge.
As if that wasn't bad enough, the man refused to accept christianity. I respected that, understood it, and let it pass.
My pastor didnt. THey began to fought. The man was so outraged he was speaking his own language again. For a second my pastor blocked the camera, and then disappeared. Seconda passed, my pastor came out with a 2x4 and beat the man to death.
I watched him suffer and die. Had this not been a movie I'd have killed the pastor and be in juvie now, as I would have committed a "sinful" kill.

You think that christians are pure? You think it's a good thing to go on missions trips and take people out of their homes and force them to be like you? How is that better when the Pilgrims left England because their king forced religon upon them?
I hope this post brings serious knowledge of the real world to you people, instead of looking upon your own type with rose-tinted glasses.

Now, you wanted to tell me christians are of purer heart than athiests?

I'm Christian and I've never been to Africa nor have I tried to kill anybody. Why don't you follow my example, or the examples of other good Christians? Why do you point to the bad and generalise about the entire group? Is it fair for me to point at Timothy McVeigh and conclude that all Americans are evil?

God created us to worship Him.


Hmm..in that case, hes not doing very well there either is he?

I blame the bhuddists for that.

Hmm..in that case, hes not doing very well there either is he?

I blame the bhuddists for that.

Well, you're not doing a good job of it. ;)

Well, you're not doing a good job of it. ;)


Heh..there isnt a retirement package...

But if he believes that Bhuddism isnt a religion...how good can anything he says truly be?


Buddism is an odd one as to whether or not its a religion. It depends how exactly you define religion. Either by function, or by content. In other words, do you call something a religion because it is a form of social control as well as a socialising agent, creates and instills a strong moral code and generates a strong group dynamic (functional) or do you call something a religion because it believes in a god/gods/godess/spirits etc(content). I personally side with the latter, describing it as thus not a religion. Its more a philosophy of life than a faith.

Heh..there isnt a retirement package...
Not only being a Christian supports your life today, you also get a free ticket to Heaven in your afterlife! Join the programme!!

Lol. I feel like an insurance dealer. :p

Buddism is an odd one as to whether or not its a religion. It depends how exactly you define religion. Either by function, or by content. In other words, do you call something a religion because it is a form of social control as well as a socialising agent, creates and instills a strong moral code and generates a strong group dynamic (functional) or do you call something a religion because it believes in a god/gods/godess/spirits etc(content). I personally side with the latter, describing it as thus not a religion. Its more a philosophy of life than a faith.


I disagree.

A religion is a system of spiritual beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.
Regardless of wether its polytheistic, monotheistic, or has no gods at all, if its a belief system, and has followers..its a religion.
Buddhism is a system of beliefs that aspire to greatness, to reach the highest stage, wherein we are all one with everything else, each life we live, is a higher stage than the last, until finally, we reach Nirvana.

Its not merely a philosphy, its a way of life for millions.

If thats not a religion..what on earth is?

Not only being a Christian supports your life today, you also get a free ticket to Heaven in your afterlife! Join the programme!!

Lol. I feel like an insurance dealer. :p


See, I did join the program, and decided to put my two weeks notice in.
It seems the Boss never came to work.

See, I did join the program, and decided to put my two weeks notice in.
It seems the Boss never came to work.

If you're interested, you'd probably need to look for a qualified person to talk that you. I suggest you do that, not wanting you to miss the boss because the boss's rival will try anything to keep you away from the boss.

If you're interested, you'd probably need to look for a qualified person to talk that you. I suggest you do that, not wanting you to miss the boss because the boss's rival will try anything to keep you away from the boss.


I have a euphemism headache now....

I get what your saying.
I was raised Lutheran...then went die-hard athiest.

Im happier this way.

I disagree.

A religion is a system of spiritual beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.
Regardless of wether its polytheistic, monotheistic, or has no gods at all, if its a belief system, and has followers..its a religion.
Buddhism is a system of beliefs that aspire to greatness, to reach the highest stage, wherein we are all one with everything else, each life we live, is a higher stage than the last, until finally, we reach Nirvana.

Its not merely a philosphy, its a way of life for millions.

If thats not a religion..what on earth is?

A philosophy of life, a way of life. The fact that it has millions of followers does not change its status. It has not got the normal context of a religion, a belief in a god/gods/godess/godesses/spirits. And dont act as if there is a certian definiton, I have studied sociology for a long time and within the sociology of religion, Buddihisim is still a uncertian and annoying problem of definition.

I have a euphemism headache now....

I get what your saying.
I was raised Lutheran...then went die-hard athiest.

Im happier this way.
Sure. :)

But if one day you have any doubts about Christianity, ask someone for help? Up to you. :p

Ok, I'm gonna try to be a little less antagonistic and just ask you lot some questions instead.

from what i can tell, existance created only to be happy would also be fake. unrealized of full potential to one's capacity for feelings and thinkings and growth.

Instinctively I agree with you... But I wonder how you can be so sure of this? I mean, I trust my instincts out in the real world, but we're talking something very alien from humans. I have no base of reference, so my gut feeling is pretty useless.
So.. How are you able to make this assumption?



No. You were born with the tendancy to sin. You don't automatically sin, but it is so easy to do so that you just sin. You just do it, no matter who you are.

You respond here to a comment made about original sin. So is original sin there or is it just hard not to sin on our own?
Furthermore, you got to help me comprehend this sinning business. Gods rules for sinning (whatever you wish to call it - the guidelines in the Bible) have changed quite a bit over time. Notably from the old to the new testament. How can this be?
And why are things we can't help sins?
I mean, it may or may not be a sin to be homosexual or engage in homosexual sex, and it is a sin to think your mates wife is hot. These are hardly things people can help. I mean, I suppose I have some understanding of why it would be a sin to bang your neighbours wife... But just thinking "Damn, lucky bastard, I'd love to nail her" is hardly something you can help, unless you're dead.
And there's lots of things like this. I agree it's indeed very hard not to sin, but I wonder why a benign being would make it like that?




Humans created in God's image doesn't mean that we are gods. We are imperfect compared to God, and the tendancy to sin is one of the crucial imperfections.

God did know that humans were going to sin. But "knowing" and "punishing" are two seperate actions and can be indepedent. You know something, and then you get to choose whether to act upon the knowledge or not. God chose to.

Alright. But god knew exactly what would happen, right?
So why didn't he do something beforehand. Give a warning, zap the snake, change the season or whatever. Assuming humans was created so our potential can only be realized through temptation, would it not have been fair to at least give A & E a heads up about the snake? Or turn the snake into something slightly less trustworthy, say a charging combined rhino-whale-tiger? Even the most innocent A & E would've thought twice about hanging out with a thing like that. Can't really say the same about a snake if you don't have a frame of reference.
Kids who grow up around pythons never thinks twice about snakes after all. They'd prolly be bitten to death if they suddenly were left unatended in a jungle (or whatever).
The impression I get from the story, is that god knew, and wanted, A&E to listen to the snake, and then punished them severly when they did. So why am I wrong?



We haven't established he "made" hell. As has been stated, hell could be simpley everywhere that hell isnt, and it merely seems to be as terrible and horrible as it is because of the comparision to the wonderfulness of heaven.

So Hell is not something full of eternal torment and psycho demons, but just oblivion? Not implying that you're not a Christian or that you shouldn't have your own take on it, but is there any basis in the bible for that belief?
Also, if god made everything and is everywhere, how can the oblivion idea work?
And, are we talking about getting to spend an eternity being conscious but lost in limbo, or is it just 'you're dead, and that's the end of it'?
The latter wouldn't bother me by the way, though I still think a nice god would at least make his presence known on death, and ask what one wanted to happen (assuming one haven't been a terrible bastard in life, but just didn't have faith or the wrong faith).



Essentially yes, but its a little more than that. His love for his creation is so complete and wonderful and he is in such pain to see it falling apart the way it is through sin that he sends another act of great love to deal with the problem of sin.

But all this still leaves me baffled. I mean, if this is really what took place, then don't I have a right to hold him accountable for the countless billions he's damned before Jesus came along? One son is really not even a drop in the ocean here - no offence. Also, I wonder why God couldn't face the music himself. That would have been rather more appropriate if you ask me. But really, this whole thing keeps looking like God punishing others for stuff they really had no part in.
Confirming the original sin deal would help sort this out a bit, but in light of how easy it was to sin back then (much easier than now), I still don't understand it.
Also, Jesus is the guy who changes the rules about sinning, or delivers the new rules from daddy. I don't understand why God/Jesus couldn't have made the rules managable. Given God's experience (if nothing else) with silly humans at this point, I would've thought he'd either redo humanity, or make the rules (for lack of better word) easier to live up to.
Why, when our lives revolves so closely around sex, make desire for some a sin, even when you don't act upon the desire, for example?



Its not "a rule he made" as you put it. Its to do with the nature of sin and the nature of God. Because of who God is and because of what sin is that the seriousness of the situation exists. Your failing to apreciate either of those. And God has talked to us all, through the Bible. If you dont read it or examine it you cant say that he isnt talking to you.

Explain please. I have read the bible. Long time ago, but I have read it. Anyway, you're right that I fail to apreciate the implications. Either that, or you do.
God didn't talk to me through the Bible. If he had, I guarantee you we wouldn't have this little chat. My particular case of Atheism isn't refusal to believe in God. It's failure to see how he could be real. If God should ever decide to speak to me, I'd be all ears. I'd prolly think myself insane and seek help, but assuming God really did make himself known to me, I'd of course believe instantly.

Anyway, as you'll likely have noticed by now, Christianity (well religion really) makes no sense to me. It's hard not to come to the same conclusions as people like Bakunin (try reading God & The State). I can't understand how sinning isn't a concept god have created, and I don't understand what you write above. But I'd love to hear a more indepth explanation of what you alledge to :)

God sent his son to die for the world. It is the greatest act of love the world has ever known, and it was done to save you personally, as well as me personally and every other human. If you choose to just ignore it you are basicly ignoring God's action. He cant force you to love him. As for your point on actions, to live a life thats "good" enough to get you to heaven, you would have to lead a sinless life. But thats virtually impossible for humans, which is why God sent Jesus.

Tons of parents send their sons & daughters to fight and die for something. Perhaps they're not as great people as Jesus, but that hardly make it any less of a selfless, loving act. At least not to me.. Frankly I think what you just said is slightly obnoxious, but I'm sure you meant no offence.

Anyway, I don't want to sound like an ingrate, but why would god do such a thing to save me? Assuming he knows the hearts of all men, he must've known I don't believe it happened. He could've at least left some sort of proof it took place if he wanted me to think twice about it. I mean, noone can say for sure that Jesus walked around and preached. Sure proof that he was the son of God would be nice, but a good start would be proof that Jesus was real, and not just a myth like Hydra.

As it is, I don't rightly think I 'dismiss' anything. There's not really anything for me to dismiss. You at least have some sort of feeling, belief or whatever you prefer to call it. I have no such thing, and I fail to understand how people can 'feel' like you do.

Again, this thing about god sending his son off to fight and die (well verbally at least), for something you plainly state we humans can't help, seems a bit horrible to me. Because as far as I can tell, God created this situation in the first place.

So why send his son? Why make it impossible for us to live acceptable lives? I hope you understand why I find it hard to believe in god, or believe that god is a good guy. And I'd love an explanation, because I don't really understand how you arrive at the conclusions you do.


But that's okay, cuz evolution will set it all right in the end

That's actually so dumb, it's funny :p

Ok, I'm gonna try to be a little less antagonistic and just ask you lot some questions instead.
I very much appreciate that! :fluffle:


You respond here to a comment made about original sin. So is original sin there or is it just hard not to sin on our own?
It is so hard not to sin, sinning is as close to natural behaviour.

Furthermore, you got to help me comprehend this sinning business. Gods rules for sinning (whatever you wish to call it - the guidelines in the Bible) have changed quite a bit over time. Notably from the old to the new testament. How can this be?
How come it can't? God is allowed to change His mind, no?

And why are things we can't help sins?
I mean, it may or may not be a sin to be homosexual or engage in homosexual sex, and it is a sin to think your mates wife is hot. These are hardly things people can help. I mean, I suppose I have some understanding of why it would be a sin to bang your neighbours wife... But just thinking "Damn, lucky bastard, I'd love to nail her" is hardly something you can help, unless you're dead.
Anything that is beyond God's parameters of action is sinning. Can you picture an all divine, moral and clean god looking at an angel's butt and having fantasies?

And there's lots of things like this. I agree it's indeed very hard not to sin, but I wonder why a benign being would make it like that?

He's benign - AND JUST and the same time. Sin needs to be punished - BUT sins can be forgiven too.

Alright. But god knew exactly what would happen, right?
So why didn't he do something beforehand. Give a warning, zap the snake, change the season or whatever. Assuming humans was created so our potential can only be realized through temptation, would it not have been fair to at least give A & E a heads up about the snake? Or turn the snake into something slightly less trustworthy, say a charging combined rhino-whale-tiger? Even the most innocent A & E would've thought twice about hanging out with a thing like that. Can't really say the same about a snake if you don't have a frame of reference.
Kids who grow up around pythons never thinks twice about snakes after all. They'd prolly be bitten to death if they suddenly were left unatended in a jungle (or whatever).
The impression I get from the story, is that god knew, and wanted, A&E to listen to the snake, and then punished them severly when they did. So why am I wrong?

If God made humans listen to Him all the time, He wouldn't have put a soul in all of us. We'd be common mongrels. That, obviously, wasn't according to God's plan. God gave us free will, so on one hand we would learn to look after ourselves, but at the same He hopes that we will turn to Him, worship Him and glorify Him.
Therefore, even if you sin, you have a rescue mechanism. A lot of people focus on "God made humans sin, so God is actually evil". However, many have neglected that fact that when God closed the door, He opened a window. We all have a way to break away from sins, which is simply accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. It's THAT simple, yet people aren't willing, for this reason or that. That baffles me at times.
[/QUOTE]

That's actually so dumb, it's funny :p

Thank you. *takes a bow* :p

Buddism is an odd one as to whether or not its a religion. It depends how exactly you define religion. Either by function, or by content. In other words, do you call something a religion because it is a form of social control as well as a socialising agent, creates and instills a strong moral code and generates a strong group dynamic (functional) or do you call something a religion because it believes in a god/gods/godess/spirits etc(content). I personally side with the latter, describing it as thus not a religion. Its more a philosophy of life than a faith.

Buddhists do admit the existence of god(s). They just don't believe that they should necessarily be worshipped, or that they are the absolute end-point of all existence. A god, to some Buddhists, is an entity so wrapped up in its own ego that it will have to undergo many, many cycles to finally escape from the wheel of existence.

Buddhism recognises that perfection is an end-point, not a beginning. Perfection must be, by definition, unchanging -- in human terms an annihilation of existence. A perfect entity cannot have desires, cannot "want" this or "require" that. It's certainly not going to start creating things around it to worship it, it's not going to interfere with the universe by making laws and rules and rewards and punishments, or arranging the blood sacrifice of itself in human form to redeem its creation from its own hugely OTT punishment handed out some few thousand years earlier. "Free will" is meaningless to a perfect entity; it wants nothing, aims at nothing, does nothing. The Judeo-Christian God, by this measure, is far from perfect.

Buddhism is a product of an extremely philosophically advanced culture with a strong mathematical bent, one which appreciated the meaning of concepts like "zero" and "infinity", which neither mainstream Judaism nor Christianity nor Islam have ever really got to grips with.

Jacobia I'm sorry mate. You do me wrong but I suppose I asked for it. This isn't really a debate as much as it's a bitching contest. I'm new here, and only go on occational posting spree's, so I'm not at all suprised you judge based on what I've posted in this thread. But really, I've just been answering inane dribble in kind.

Of course it's completely moronic to compare the concept of god to parents. But please note I just answered it - like yourself. Hell, trying to project human characteristics on a god is just silly.

You're right that you'll almost certainly never make a believer out of me. I don't expect you to, anymore than I expect you to become an atheist.

You're also right about the king of the anthill bit, but arguably not in the way you think. Very religious people freak me out. You may not notice it, but some people are actually telling people like me that we're going to suffer for all eternity, and that we deserve every second of it. It's close to impossible not to answer such things. It's not the bit about hell, it's that people are so arrogant and (in my mind) evil, that they think we deserve it.

I at least partially agree that people can't really know happiness without having experienced misery. I do not agree that people have to have seen friends or strangers die before their eyes, or known true poverty to know happiness. Although for some people, it would undoubtedly help. Sadly, in my experience, those are always the last people such things happen to. But I do not blame anyone's god for anything, really. Please understand that I do not have any reason to suspect the supernatural exists. Likewise, I'm dead certain natural catastrophies and the like happens because of the laws of the physical world. I've never for a second blamed an earthquake on anyone or anything. And calamities like starvation and civil wars on the African continent I blame us humans for.

I'm always intrugued by faith and like to hear about it, if it goes on in a calm, reasonable and unjudgemental manner. A few people on this forum have already managed to convince me religion isn't inherently dangerous. Of course it doesn't mean I will believe in any of them, but at least I appreciate that it helps some people. That's more than I did a month ago. If you knew me, you'd have noticed I've stopped calling religions a mindfuck.

But like I said, it's hard reading some of the posts here without getting a really sour taste in one's mouth. And it's just easier to tear stupid dribble apart than it is to highten the level of debate. But I'll take a break from this topic for the rest of the day and hope it improves :)

If this post was indicative of the rest of your posts in this thread we would be having a great conversation. My advice: rise above. It's the same advice I've given others in this thread. The thread was going really well, and civilly earlier and people on occasion entered in with drivel and were ignored (and left). Whether or not they are doing it on purpose I view those people as trolls that lower the entire mentality of the thread and it requires vigilance to keep it above board. Of course, I'm occasionally guilty myself and I'm always thankful to those that admonish me and keep me involved in intelligent debate.

I disagree.

A religion is a system of spiritual beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.
Regardless of wether its polytheistic, monotheistic, or has no gods at all, if its a belief system, and has followers..its a religion.
Buddhism is a system of beliefs that aspire to greatness, to reach the highest stage, wherein we are all one with everything else, each life we live, is a higher stage than the last, until finally, we reach Nirvana.

Its not merely a philosphy, its a way of life for millions.

If thats not a religion..what on earth is?

I generally agree with this, but I would say it has to also puport to have some knowledge or belief about the absolute nature of reality.

Ok, I'm gonna try to be a little less antagonistic and just ask you lot some questions instead.*SNIP*
Much better. I would tell you what I think about all this, but I don't agree at all with most of what these other guys are espousing. For example, it is widely held that no one who has not died in a judgement from God has already been judged. In other words, since they have not yet been judged they still have a chance, even if dead. Many believe that people will be resurrected for the 1000 year reign and will have an opportunity to accept Christ then. This throws away a lot of the arguments about hell or a non-loving God.

Ok, I'm gonna try to be a little less antagonistic and just ask you lot some questions instead.
I very much appreciate that!
Heh, then help me out mate. Don't make it hard ;)
Look, this intire post of yours makes very little sense, and apart from the first and last line, I'm not even certain you're conversing with me. I suspect you may be since you quote me, but really..
It's quite alright if you don't feel like having this debate, but I'd rather you just left my initial post unmangled if that's the case.
Anyway, I'll break down your post and ask a few questions.. Mostly a repeat of the ones you quoted.

You respond here to a comment made about original sin. So is original sin there or is it just hard not to sin on our own?
It is so hard not to sin, sinning is as close to natural behaviour.
So.. Lemme rephrase that question. Is there such a thing as original sin?
Also, sinning is human nature, or as close to it as what?

Furthermore, you got to help me comprehend this sinning business. Gods rules for sinning (whatever you wish to call it - the guidelines in the Bible) have changed quite a bit over time. Notably from the old to the new testament. How can this be?
How come it can't? God is allowed to change His mind, no?
Ok, I'll rephrase that as well: How does it work, what brought it about.. WHY?!

"God just changed the rules" Isn't any sort of answer. So I asked why. Your answer is "Why not?" It makes no sense as a response and only begs the same exact question again. I'm asking about motivation, not whether it happened. Obviously it did.
Also, you or someone else objected that sinning isn't rules or guidelines laid down by god, but that sin is rather something to do with the nature of god. Of course this raises some questions about the nature of God and sin. I'm not in any way trying to imply the Christian God can't doo whatever he wants to. He's all-powerful by all accounts.

And why are things we can't help sins?
I mean, it may or may not be a sin to be homosexual or engage in homosexual sex, and it is a sin to think your mates wife is hot. These are hardly things people can help. I mean, I suppose I have some understanding of why it would be a sin to bang your neighbours wife... But just thinking "Damn, lucky bastard, I'd love to nail her" is hardly something you can help, unless you're dead.
Anything that is beyond God's parameters of action is sinning. Can you picture an all divine, moral and clean god looking at an angel's butt and having fantasies?
No offence, but yes of course. That's exactly what I can imagine. I'm human, male and not even 30 yet. I have a hard time imagening God wouldn't drool over angelic butts. Of course, I have no idea what an angel looks like or what god is into, or if god's into anything at all. But the way you phrase the question, it's hard not to picture an old bearded guy sending his divine host hungry looks. No offence or anything.

And there's lots of things like this. I agree it's indeed very hard not to sin, but I wonder why a benign being would make it like that?
He's benign - AND JUST and the same time. Sin needs to be punished - BUT sins can be forgiven too.
Again, is this a response to what you quoted? I'll rephrase again:
Why would someone who likes and cares for his creations, make them like that. It's vaguely comparable to me making model cars that require batteries, but instantly explode when I put batteries in them.. It seems comparable anyway. So I ask why he'd do things this way? It makes no sense to me.
Your reply is that he ensure's we'll all be rotten, because he loves us and doesn't want us to be rotten. And you say that he's also just.
To me that's either utterly nonsensical or a longwinded oxymoron. Either way, it's not even close to an explanation.
No, I am not dismissing that god might be benevolent and just. I just find it a bit hard to see how that can be the case. Clarify at will.

Alright. But god knew exactly what would happen, right?
So why didn't he do something beforehand. Give a warning, zap the snake, change the season or whatever. Assuming humans was created so our potential can only be realized through temptation, would it not have been fair to at least give A & E a heads up about the snake? Or turn the snake into something slightly less trustworthy, say a charging combined rhino-whale-tiger? Even the most innocent A & E would've thought twice about hanging out with a thing like that. Can't really say the same about a snake if you don't have a frame of reference.
Kids who grow up around pythons never thinks twice about snakes after all. They'd prolly be bitten to death if they suddenly were left unatended in a jungle (or whatever).
The impression I get from the story, is that god knew, and wanted, A&E to listen to the snake, and then punished them severly when they did. So why am I wrong?
If God made humans listen to Him all the time, He wouldn't have put a soul in all of us. We'd be common mongrels. That, obviously, wasn't according to God's plan. God gave us free will, so on one hand we would learn to look after ourselves, but at the same He hopes that we will turn to Him, worship Him and glorify Him.
Therefore, even if you sin, you have a rescue mechanism. A lot of people focus on "God made humans sin, so God is actually evil". However, many have neglected that fact that when God closed the door, He opened a window. We all have a way to break away from sins, which is simply accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. It's THAT simple, yet people aren't willing, for this reason or that. That baffles me at times.
Do not consider this as me recognising the Bible is anything but a fairytale... But we have the Bible. A&E had squat. God seems to just have expected them to know right from wrong instinctively, without any frame of reference. A warning isn't the same as taking away free will. If it was, we'd all be braindead husks, as we live in societies with rules.
It's a bit similar to if I jet jailed for eternity for not paying taxes, if I'd never even heard about taxes in the first place.
Or some guy in a pub getting me arrested because one bartender says it's too late to order more, but the other bartender serves me a drink when the first one isn't looking.

Also, that thing about the window is all very good. But I wonder where the justice is in me having to break in thru a window just because a couple of long dead ancestors did something they apparently didn't even know was wrong. If we humans treated eachother like that, we'd have gone extinct from bloodfeuds within the first few generations.

Anyway, the original post still stands. If anyone cares to explain some of these things with more than a simple "Because" or "It's just how it is" I'd love to hear it :)

BTw, Cheers Jacobia, I'll take that as a compliment

For example, it is widely held that no one who has not died in a judgement from God has already been judged.
Wow. I thought people were judged by God after they died. ...Learn something new everyday.

Much better. I would tell you what I think about all this, but I don't agree at all with most of what these other guys are espousing. For example, it is widely held that no one who has not died in a judgement from God has already been judged. In other words, since they have not yet been judged they still have a chance, even if dead. Many believe that people will be resurrected for the 1000 year reign and will have an opportunity to accept Christ then. This throws away a lot of the arguments about hell or a non-loving God.

Ok at least hat does away with a lot of the hellfire stuff. This isn't how it's done in the Bible though, is it? There you only get judged if you accepted Christ & The Lord in life, right?
Do note that I'm in no way an authority on this..

Anyway, thanks for the answer. Love to hear a bit about this whole sinning concept though. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Wow. I thought people were judged by God after they died. ...Learn something new everyday.

Read the Left Behind series (I don't believe most of what they have to say in the series, but it was interesting and not that preachy). Obviously, it's a popular series and at the end when they start the millenial kingdom you'll see what very many people believe, that Jesus Christ meets with every man, woman and child ever born and you are judged.

Ok at least hat does away with a lot of the hellfire stuff. This isn't how it's done in the Bible though, is it? There you only get judged if you accepted Christ & The Lord in life, right?
Do note that I'm in no way an authority on this..

Anyway, thanks for the answer. Love to hear a bit about this whole sinning concept though. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

No, in the Bible there is no suggestion that you or I would go to hell. The hell of the bible is reserved for demons, the anti-christ and the false prophet. In my opinion, people misinterpret it and pretend like this justifies there attacks on other sinners. You are saved if you accept Christ, but people who lived before Jesus are not all damned, they have not yet been judged and even those that hold they have been judged hold that they were held to different standards than we are now. The only judgements that have already occurred (if you take the Bible literally) are the ones laid down by God himself in a world where God was openly present. Clearly, that is not the world of today.

Here is an interesting site that talks about what some people believe about death and hell. It's fairly interesting and I just found it, so I've not finished reading it yet.

http://www.wsbible.com/

Christians: you are doing a poor job of explaining your God and His wonderful attributes. All your examples are anthropomorphic and fall far short of creating a convincing "all powerful, all knowing, ever present, loving deity". :p

Others: If we are wrong, we will be eternally punished for demanding proof from a sadistic supreme being. If we are right, the God believers will never know the difference. :D

And why are things we can't help sins?
I mean, it may or may not be a sin to be homosexual or engage in homosexual sex, and it is a sin to think your mates wife is hot. These are hardly things people can help. I mean, I suppose I have some understanding of why it would be a sin to bang your neighbours wife... But just thinking "Damn, lucky bastard, I'd love to nail her" is hardly something you can help, unless you're dead.
And there's lots of things like this. I agree it's indeed very hard not to sin, but I wonder why a benign being would make it like that?

Your not understanding what sin is. Sin is disobeying God. God didnt "make" sin like it is, it is because of who he is. In other words, God designed us with the capacity to behave like him to an extent. Not completetly obviously, but to an extent. Now sinining is when we behave in the oppisite way to him. He didn't 'decide' as it were what sin in, the only way he did is in so far as he decided to what extent humans can obey him. And in answer to your specific questions the sin is not just thinking "she's hot" it goes further to become unhealthy thus equalling lust.


Alright. But god knew exactly what would happen, right?
So why didn't he do something beforehand. Give a warning, zap the snake, change the season or whatever. Assuming humans was created so our potential can only be realized through temptation, would it not have been fair to at least give A & E a heads up about the snake? Or turn the snake into something slightly less trustworthy, say a charging combined rhino-whale-tiger? Even the most innocent A & E would've thought twice about hanging out with a thing like that. Can't really say the same about a snake if you don't have a frame of reference.
Kids who grow up around pythons never thinks twice about snakes after all. They'd prolly be bitten to death if they suddenly were left unatended in a jungle (or whatever).


They didnt need to even listen to the snake. If God had given them the command then thats all they needed to know. They shouldnt do it. They knew God and they knew they had to obey him. They did have a frame of refernce, speeking with God. Now they knew who God was and that he would tell them the truth. Since they didnt know the snake they should have not trusted it especially since they knew it was saying the opposite of what God was saying


The impression I get from the story, is that god knew, and wanted, A&E to listen to the snake, and then punished them severly when they did. So why am I wrong?

Your partially right. God did know that they would listen to the snake, but he still let them do it because of free will. Obviously he didnt want them to, but he let them becuase he loves them. He didnt want a race of mindless automatons, he wanted free willed, loving people. Of course the downside of that is that they can choose to reject him, which they did.


But all this still leaves me baffled. I mean, if this is really what took place, then don't I have a right to hold him accountable for the countless billions he's damned before Jesus came along? One son is really not even a drop in the ocean here - no offence. Also, I wonder why God couldn't face the music himself. That would have been rather more appropriate if you ask me. But really, this whole thing keeps looking like God punishing others for stuff they really had no part in.

Jesus was God, God was Jesus. The trinity is complex to say the least, but it was God.


Confirming the original sin deal would help sort this out a bit, but in light of how easy it was to sin back then (much easier than now), I still don't understand it.
Also, Jesus is the guy who changes the rules about sinning, or delivers the new rules from daddy. I don't understand why God/Jesus couldn't have made the rules managable. Given God's experience (if nothing else) with silly humans at this point, I would've thought he'd either redo humanity, or make the rules (for lack of better word) easier to live up to.
Why, when our lives revolves so closely around sex, make desire for some a sin, even when you don't act upon the desire, for example?

Your still not getting this. Sin is not "a rule" devised by God, its a disobedience from God. In other words its not fufilling your capacity to be like him. You are made in the image of God and as such you have the capacity to be like him. When you go the opposite to that you are sinning.


Tons of parents send their sons & daughters to fight and die for something. Perhaps they're not as great people as Jesus, but that hardly make it any less of a selfless, loving act. At least not to me.. Frankly I think what you just said is slightly obnoxious, but I'm sure you meant no offence.

Many people do send there sons/daughters to die for something, but they dont do it certianly. Remember God sent Jesus into the world knowing the exact way in which his life would end. And Jesus did say that it wasnt just him displaying that love "Greater love have no man than this, that he should lay down his life for his friends". In this case, Jesus's "friends" were all humanity.


Anyway, I don't want to sound like an ingrate, but why would god do such a thing to save me? Assuming he knows the hearts of all men, he must've known I don't believe it happened. He could've at least left some sort of proof it took place if he wanted me to think twice about it. I mean, noone can say for sure that Jesus walked around and preached. Sure proof that he was the son of God would be nice, but a good start would be proof that Jesus was real, and not just a myth like Hydra.

He left proof, in the Bible. If you want to study it in more depth or you want God to guide you through it, pray about it. I would start by reading Johns Gospel. Theres lots of guides out there you can get.


Again, this thing about god sending his son off to fight and die (well verbally at least), for something you plainly state we humans can't help, seems a bit horrible to me. Because as far as I can tell, God created this situation in the first place.

Humans were the ones who chose to disobey. Is is a parents fault if a child disobeys because the parent set down the rules that are broken. Thats like saying, when you get a speeding fine "its not my fault I broke the speed limit, its the governments because they put the speed limit there"


So why send his son? Why make it impossible for us to live acceptable lives? I hope you understand why I find it hard to believe in god, or believe that god is a good guy. And I'd love an explanation, because I don't really understand how you arrive at the conclusions you do.


He sent his son because after the fall, it was impossible for us to reach God by works. Only God's intervention could stop us from all going to hell. You see, the system has always been that sin cannot be in the presence of God, which is why after the fall God no longer could walk in the presence of people like he did in Eden. So God had to do something to allow peoples sin's to be removed so that they could come back to him. This he did through Jesus's death. Jesus, the man who never sinned died. This breaks the sin death cycle, so now others could do the same. Via belief in Jesus and trust in his death, people can now have there sins removed and once again enter God's presence.

Christians: you are doing a poor job of explaining your God and His wonderful attributes. All your examples are anthropomorphic and fall far short of creating a convincing "all powerful, all knowing, ever present, loving deity". :p

Others: If we are wrong, we will be eternally punished for demanding proof from a sadistic supreme being. If we are right, the God believers will never know the difference. :D

Not all Christians hold the same belief and more importantly, many if not most do not agree with the arguments being made here. However, if you wish to judge all Christians by the arguments that have been made here recently, feel free, but you'll be guilty of the same sort of intolerance many of them are guilty of.

They didnt need to even listen to the snake. If God had given them the command then thats all they needed to know. They shouldnt do it. They knew God and they knew they had to obey him. They did have a frame of refernce, speeking with God. Now they knew who God was and that he would tell them the truth. Since they didnt know the snake they should have not trusted it especially since they knew it was saying the opposite of what God was saying

You still miss the point. You can't know of truth or trust and really understand what that means without good or evil. You forget that Adam and Eve were missing a fundamental knowldedge that you have and are applying. Your explanation of the events of the Bible are including your knowledge of 'good', 'evil' and 'sin'. That's why it's so obviously an allegory.

[QUOTE=Hobbyair]Christians: you are doing a poor job of explaining your God and His wonderful attributes. All your examples are anthropomorphic and fall far short of creating a convincing "all powerful, all knowing, ever present, loving deity". :p

but just look at the world today and all that happens in it, if god is all loving then why does he not do something about it? if he can but chooses not to then he isnt 'all loving' while if he cant then he isnt 'all powerful'. And if hes 'all knowing' why would any of us be damned for sinning since by definition he knew it would happen, original sin for example if hes 'all knowing' he knew we would do it seems a little ridiculous to punish humans for it (kind of like crushing a pebble for hitting the floor after you let go of it!) If it is necessary for a god to be all of the above then things are looking a little worrying on the god existence chart!!

[QUOTE=Hobbyair]Christians: you are doing a poor job of explaining your God and His wonderful attributes. All your examples are anthropomorphic and fall far short of creating a convincing "all powerful, all knowing, ever present, loving deity". :p

but just look at the world today and all that happens in it, if god is all loving then why does he not do something about it? if he can but chooses not to then he isnt 'all loving' while if he cant then he isnt 'all powerful'. And if hes 'all knowing' why would any of us be damned for sinning since by definition he knew it would happen, original sin for example if hes 'all knowing' he knew we would do it seems a little ridiculous to punish humans for it (kind of like crushing a pebble for hitting the floor after you let go of it!) If it is necessary for a god to be all of the above then things are looking a little worrying on the god existence chart!!

Terrible argument. Yes, things happen in the world, but the alternative is for us all to be little automatons that can't even have this conversation. You made a thousand assumptions about us as humans. Were I in heaven and given a chance to live a life of trials AND triumphs, of pain AND joy, or sorrow AND elation. I'd take it. No ifs, ands or buts. And they can tell me ahead of time that I would be molested and abused (I was), that I would live the life I've lived and I would do it. They could tell me my life would be filled with physical and emotional pain with just little pockets of joy. I'd do it. And clearly you would to, because you're here. You can't claim you're an atheist and that this life isn't worth living and still be living it. Because why would you bother? You bother because you know there are things that make it worth it. You bother because you know somewhere deep down inside that you might be wrong and there might be a God that intended for you to live this life to the fullest. You bother quite simply because you know you should.

You still miss the point. You can't know of truth or trust and really understand what that means without good or evil. You forget that Adam and Eve were missing a fundamental knowldedge that you have and are applying. Your explanation of the events of the Bible are including your knowledge of 'good', 'evil' and 'sin'. That's why it's so obviously an allegory.

Actually you can know truth without a sense of morality. This is what a lot of people fail to understand. You see all the truth is is an accurate account. Nothing more nothing less. Now it is morrally good to tell the truth and morrally bad to lie, but the truth itself has no good or bad leanings in terms of morality. The truth exists naturally, people make lies.

He sent his son because after the fall, it was impossible for us to reach God by works. Only God's intervention could stop us from all going to hell. You see, the system has always been that sin cannot be in the presence of God, which is why after the fall God no longer could walk in the presence of people like he did in Eden. So God had to do something to allow peoples sin's to be removed so that they could come back to him. This he did through Jesus's death. Jesus, the man who never sinned died. This breaks the sin death cycle, so now others could do the same. Via belief in Jesus and trust in his death, people can now have there sins removed and once again enter God's presence.

So why the wait of 4000 or so years from the Fall, sometime shortly after 4004BC, and the incarnation of Christ? Was he just stringing the Jews along all that time? And -- if God couldn't just say "I forgive you" to humanity -- why does Christ say (to Himself) "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do"? Why would God in the person of the Son have to ask God in the person of the Father to forgive His executioners, who were apparently quite happy to nail Him up, and NOT accept Him as their one true saviour? Do you think God listened to His own request? if so, why couldn't He apply it to the whole of humanity, whom He had seen fit to condemn for the actions of their ancestors?

My perspective
Sin is a religious concept created to control the behavior of individuals within a community. As the size of the population grew, the definition of community evolved from a confined geological area to include those of the same belief structure irregardless of physical location as well. The concept of sin, morality and taboo were necessary at first to enable a group of humans to dwell together and work for the survival (common good) of the community. It became more effective with the addition of Gods and Heavenly Judgements to control others according to the ideas of a select few. If original sin is true, its nature would not change with societal evolution.

God created man, (Gen.1) woman,(Gen.2) and punished them for something they didn't understand (Gen.3).
God killed everyone, excepting eight, seven of which He later regretted saving, for doing what they were created to do.(Gen.7/8) (Ezek.14)
Now in The Revelation of St. John we find that this time, God will destroy the unbelieving populace with fire. (Rev.20)
And in Isaiah we find God admitting that He causes good and bad.(Isa.45)

These are a few of the reasons why the bible will not convince me of its own innerrancy and truth. Nor will its concept of God impress me.

[QUOTE=Smelly Iguanas]

Terrible argument. Yes, things happen in the world, but the alternative is for us all to be little automatons that can't even have this conversation. You made a thousand assumptions about us as humans. Were I in heaven and given a chance to live a life of trials AND triumphs, of pain AND joy, or sorrow AND elation. I'd take it. No ifs, ands or buts. And they can tell me ahead of time that I would be molested and abused (I was), that I would live the life I've lived and I would do it. They could tell me my life would be filled with physical and emotional pain with just little pockets of joy. I'd do it. And clearly you would to, because you're here. You can't claim you're an atheist and that this life isn't worth living and still be living it. Because why would you bother? You bother because you know there are things that make it worth it. You bother because you know somewhere deep down inside that you might be wrong and there might be a God that intended for you to live this life to the fullest. You bother quite simply because you know you should.


This is what I don't get. Why can't we NOT be automatons and NOT have lives filled with suffering and misery. Noone will explain that to me. If god is so powerful, he can make ANYTHING happen.

Also, as for the "growth and development" argument; that only makes sense in a finite, imperfect world. If we were perfect and knew god completely, growth wouldn't be necessary.

And being an atheist has nothing to do with life not being worth living. Life is worth living because it's all we have. I just can't see any argument that says it was given to us by an onimpotent AND loving creator.

So why the wait of 4000 or so years from the Fall, sometime shortly after 4004BC, and the incarnation of Christ? Was he just stringing the Jews along all that time?

That one I cant answer, for the simple reason that I'm not God. I could tell you several reasons however why its likley he waited. If he had done it too far back in time then he would know that it may not suvive in its message for long enough. Not many people would hear about it if it were that old. Look at when he timed it. During the Roman ocupation of Israel. The Roman empire spanned across a massive section of Europe, so the Christian message could be spread far and wide and suvive. But for any of the questions I cant answer let me ask you this. If I could answer the questions to your satisfaction, would it actually change your beliefs. Or does your satisfaction not exist and you would be unsatisfied with any answer,


And -- if God couldn't just say "I forgive you" to humanity -- why does Christ say (to Himself) "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do"? Why would God in the person of the Son have to ask God in the person of the Father to forgive His executioners, who were apparently quite happy to nail Him up, and NOT accept Him as their one true saviour? Do you think God listened to His own request? if so, why couldn't He apply it to the whole of humanity, whom He had seen fit to condemn for the actions of their ancestors?

He's refering to after the crucifixtion. I don't know if God honoured what Jesus asked. I would imagine so. But look at the reason he gives "they do not know what they are doing". I would imagine most of the time humans know what they are doing when they sin, but obviously there are times when they dont, and those times it would seem that God forgives automatically. I dont know, I'm not God.

Actually you can know truth without a sense of morality. This is what a lot of people fail to understand. You see all the truth is is an accurate account. Nothing more nothing less. Now it is morrally good to tell the truth and morrally bad to lie, but the truth itself has no good or bad leanings in terms of morality. The truth exists naturally, people make lies.

Snake: Eat the apple, Eve.
Eve: No. God told me not to.
Snake: And why should you do everything God tells you to?
Eve: Er... I don't know. I have no sense of good or evil, no notion of sin -- in fact I can't even begin to grasp the concepts required to formulate this sentence. With no sense of morality (whatever that is) I can tell you if I can or can't do something, but not if I should or shouldn't do something. Obviously I can eat this apple, but I'll have to leave the should or shouldn't to someone else. *munch* Oh, arse...

Also... where did the snake get its sense of good and evil from?

Why can't god be in the presence of sin? Sounds like another limitation on his powers to me. Therefore, not omnipotent.

Why did he have to torture and murder an innocent man to remove sins instead of just willing it to be? Not omnipotent.

Also, the big sticking point: faith in god would be the easy part. If god came and said "trust me, I'm god", I would have faith. It's faith in people who claim to speak for god that I have trouble with. I am not going to be able to believe that god, who is all powerful, will only let me escape damnation if I choose to buy the right version of the story.

Mikheilistan wrote{
If he had done it too far back in time then he would know that it may not suvive in its message for long enough. Not many people would hear about it if it were that old. Look at when he timed it. During the Roman ocupation of Israel. The Roman empire spanned across a massive section of Europe, so the Christian message could be spread far and wide and suvive.}

Actually, now would be a better time due to the wonders of mass communication. Of course God wouldn't need our paltry communication systems to get His message out if He really wanted to. I don't believe He cares as much as the report of His concern implies.

Since I'm neither God nor a very good receptor, I'll have to rely on my own mental faculties and reasoning skills.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]


This is what I don't get. Why can't we NOT be automatons and NOT have lives filled with suffering and misery. Noone will explain that to me. If god is so powerful, he can make ANYTHING happen.

Also, as for the "growth and development" argument; that only makes sense in a finite, imperfect world. If we were perfect and knew god completely, growth wouldn't be necessary.

And being an atheist has nothing to do with life not being worth living. Life is worth living because it's all we have. I just can't see any argument that says it was given to us by an onimpotent AND loving creator.

I don't agree that are lives are FILLED with suffering and misery. The point is that first you can't have free will and not be able to make decisions for yourself. And second, if you were to understand happiness but misery did not exist you'd have nothing to contrast it to. You couldn't fully appreciate happiness with no sorrow. And you can say why not just make us appreciate it and we're back to automatons.

Growth isn't necessary, it's desired. Why wouldn't you want to grow. If he made us perfect what would be the point really?

And you've admitted you wish to live this life. That you find joy in it that makes it worth it to you. If you have all eternity to live in perfection why would you wish away this life as you're trying to do. I don't care if perfection is available to me now. I want it pushed off as long as possible. I thank God for free will and thought and confusion and love and suffering and orgasms and telemarketers and the whole kit and kaboodle. Even you think it's worth it so your argument doesn't really hold water.

EDIT: Think of it this way. Would you rather play basketball against a toddler or someone that's a little more difficult? You're a human. You like a challenge. What's the point of winning a game where there is no chance you can lose? Is your mantle covered with trophies you didn't earn but just went out and bought? Where's the victory in that? Would you consider your parents to be loving if they never let you compete in the world but deemed you weren't really up for the challenge so they just swaddled you in cotton and never let you out into the big, bad world. God sees you as up to the challenge and he's allowing you to play the game. Now this is where you say, but if I lose I'll burn for all eternity. And I'll say, sorry, but that's a strawman because I don't hold that to be true. If you lose you'll get a chance to play a much easier game during the 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth.

[QUOTE=Jah Bootie]

I don't agree that are lives are FILLED with suffering and misery. The point is that first you can't have free will and not be able to make decisions for yourself. And second, if you were to understand happiness but misery did not exist you'd have nothing to contrast it to. You couldn't fully appreciate happiness with no sorrow. And you can say why not just make us appreciate it and we're back to automatons.

Growth isn't necessary, it's desired. Why wouldn't you want to grow. If he made us perfect what would be the point really?

And you've admitted you wish to live this life. That you find joy in it that makes it worth it to you. If you have all eternity to live in perfection why would you wish away this life as you're trying to do. I don't care if perfection is available to me now. I want it pushed off as long as possible. I thank God for free will and thought and confusion and love and suffering and orgasms and telemarketers and the whole kit and kaboodle. Even you think it's worth it so your argument doesn't really hold water.

EDIT: Think of it this way. Would you rather play basketball against a toddler or someone that's a little more difficult? You're a human. You like a challenge. What's the point of winning a game where there is no chance you can lose? Is your mantle covered with trophies you didn't earn but just went out and bought? Where's the victory in that? Would you consider your parents to be loving if they never let you compete in the world but deemed you weren't really up for the challenge so they just swaddled you in cotton and never let you out into the big, bad world. God sees you as up to the challenge and he's allowing you to play the game. Now this is where you say, but if I lose I'll burn for all eternity. And I'll say, sorry, but that's a strawman because I don't hold that to be true. If you lose you'll get a chance to play a much easier game during the 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth.


All of this misses my point, which is this: if there is all of this stuff that is IMPOSSIBLE and that CAN'T BE DONE, then doesn't that mean god is not omnipotent?

Read the Left Behind series (I don't believe most of what they have to say in the series, but it was interesting and not that preachy). Obviously, it's a popular series and at the end when they start the millenial kingdom you'll see what very many people believe, that Jesus Christ meets with every man, woman and child ever born and you are judged.
So Christ has already had the second coming? Here's here? (Sorry, I haven't read the series so that doesn't explain much.)

That one I cant answer, for the simple reason that I'm not God.

So it would be fair to say that here, at least, we've reached your point of ineffability -- although you do have a stab at providing an answer:

I could tell you several reasons however why its likley he waited. If he had done it too far back in time then he would know that it may not suvive in its message for long enough. Not many people would hear about it if it were that old. Look at when he timed it. During the Roman ocupation of Israel. The Roman empire spanned across a massive section of Europe, so the Christian message could be spread far and wide and suvive.

The Egyptian religion survived for far longer than Christianity has existed. So has Hinduism, and so has Buddhism. Islam spread far further in a much shorter space of time. And, in all honesty, modern-day Christianity, in whatever flavour you pick, is almost nothing like the original faith as described in Paul's epistles. The Copts are probably your best bet for "classic" Christianity, but they've never really hit the big time.

But for any of the questions I cant answer let me ask you this. If I could answer the questions to your satisfaction, would it actually change your beliefs. Or does your satisfaction not exist and you would be unsatisfied with any answer,

Of course I would change my beliefs if I got satisfactory answers. If the answers were satisfactory, why wouldn't I? Do you think the reason I'm not a Christian is because of some bloody-minded wilful denial of something I secretly know to be true? The reason I don't believe is because there's no external evidence for, lots of external evidence against (particularly in respect to scriptural literality), and it doesn't make any kind of sense. I have no difficulty believing things that have evidential support and are logically consistent. It's the other stuff that I have problems with.

He's refering to after the crucifixtion. I don't know if God honoured what Jesus asked. I would imagine so. But look at the reason he gives "they do not know what they are doing". I would imagine most of the time humans know what they are doing when they sin, but obviously there are times when they dont, and those times it would seem that God forgives automatically. I dont know, I'm not God.

Adam and Eve "knew not what they did", in a far more literal sense than the Roman soldiers nailing up Jesus. At least the Roman soldiers actually had a sense of good and evil. I see we are back to ineffability again. It surpasseth all understanding. But still, you maintain that Genesis is literally true; God scattered humanity across the world and mixed up their languages because they were undertaking a large-scale construction project in brick and tar (how many bricks can you pile up before the weight of the wall crushes the bricks at the bottom?); Noah fitted two kinds of every animal (including, in an odd choice for a Jew, two pigs -- looked after by Ham, presumably) into a wooden boat he built himself, to save them from another of God's fits of pique with his creation; and so on and so forth.

Jesus was God, according to your belief. Jesus told parables -- stories that were not literally true but illustrated a point. Why, then, do you insist, to the point of ineffability, that all the obvious fables in the Old Testament are literally true and not just stories told to illustrate a point?

If God can't be in the presence of sin then who is Benny Hinn talking to?

On a more serious note, the idea of an omni-present God is contradictory to the notion that He can't be in the presence of sin. Especially since He created it. For there is not anything made that He did not make. And all of the bible heroes were sinners.
Abraham= liar, cheater, abuser
Isaac= liar
Jacob= liar, cheater, abuser, thief
Noah= drunk, flasher
Sampson= you get the picture

They didnt need to even listen to the snake. If God had given them the command then thats all they needed to know. They shouldnt do it. They knew God and they knew they had to obey him. They did have a frame of refernce, speeking with God. Now they knew who God was and that he would tell them the truth. Since they didnt know the snake they should have not trusted it especially since they knew it was saying the opposite of what God was saying
There is no such thing as "should" or "shouldn't" unless you have a moral framework. So, no, Adam and Eve could not have known they should obey if they did not know right or wrong.

On the contrary, if they were perfect "right" in the Garden, they would never have been capable of disobeying. And since they did disobey, they had some "wrong" in them, then God *can* be in the presence of sin (wrongful being). Either that, or sin is simply "wrongful acts." This is why sin only makes sense as "wrongful acts."

There is no such thing as "should" or "shouldn't" unless you have a moral framework. So, no, Adam and Eve could not have known they should obey if they did not know right or wrong.

I dont know how many times I'm going to have to deal with cemantics on this forum, so let me give a list of sets of words now, so that people can understand. Something you "should" or "shouldn't" do doesnt nessecarly revolve around morals. A child obeying or disobeying there parents may be doing something that is not nessecarly immorall or moral but they still should/should not do. Where as "good" and "evil" and "right" and "wrong" are moral words, and have a moral impact. It is "evil" and "wrong" to kill someone, becuase it is part of our morality, however it was not "evil" or "wrong" to eat the fruit, of itself because it had no consequences of itself. The consequences came about not because the fruit was itself magical or special but because God had put a command around them. Adam and Eve did not have a sense of morality but they didnt need it. It wasnt a moral decsion revolving around "good" or "evil", "right" or "wrong". It simpley a decision of obediance or disobediance.


On the contrary, if they were perfect "right" in the Garden, they would never have been capable of disobeying. And since they did disobey, they had some "wrong" in them, then God *can* be in the presence of sin (wrongful being). Either that, or sin is simply "wrongful acts." This is why sin only makes sense as "wrongful acts."

They did not have something "wrong" in them, they chose to do something wrong. It seems here your taking a causality factor, IE being "they did something wrong, something within themselves must have caused them to do it, therefore the thing within them is evil". However the thing that enabled them to eat the fruit was their own free will. Free will itself is not evil, but it can be used to do evil.


If God can't be in the presence of sin then who is Benny Hinn talking to?

Your misunderstanding my use of the word "presence" and its partially my fault. Basicly I meant was that as a result of sin we cant have the same kind of relationship with God that we had in Eden. We can however have that relationship in Heaven if we ask for our sins to be forgiven.

Ha. I really hope you don't think this is actually a valid proof. The word is omnipotent. And if God is omnipotent, he could create a rock that he couldn't lift if he made is so he couldn't lift it. You're applying rules to a being you actually don't understand and can't. Hardly a valid proof.



He created them. How does being obedient somehow negate his existence? Oh, wait, it doesn't.



You're just making up words. You want to use omnitient and omnipotent. As far as the made-up word omnibenevolent, you are applying the concept of good and evil to the being that created them. He has no obligation to adhere to the moral code we do. Knowledge of the future could also include knowing the results of all possible decisions he makes. You're intentionally simplifying the concept and then suggesting it's impossible. You've heard of a strawman, yes?



You haven't proved anything and the attempts were pretty lame even by the standards of this board. More importantly, atheism isn't about the judeo-christian God. If you believe in Zeus and the pantheon, you are not an atheist. You'd have to deal with all possible deity(ies), god(s) in order to suggest that atheism is provable or that the god(s) are by nature observable. You don't really think that your post actually made sense or was based on sound logic, do you?

:) I conceed I don't know any of the terminology, but I don't really believe in any God, but they were not being discussed at the time, and the fact that you knew what I meant means you're nitpicking. And also, most religions themselves state that they are not logical, calling themselves a faith. Faith, as defined, is belief in the face of heavy facts to the otherwise, and proof for the opposite reasoning. So when you say you still have your faith, your saying I still have no proof but I still believe what I'm saying.

And, I admit, I have the tendency to do that, but usually I have to dumb things down 0.o.... Anyway, let's agree to disagree, because to this day the only person I've converted to athiesm is myself.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]


All of this misses my point, which is this: if there is all of this stuff that is IMPOSSIBLE and that CAN'T BE DONE, then doesn't that mean god is not omnipotent?

No, it doesn't. You're choosing two opposite terms and acting like not being able to do both at the same time makes him not omnipotent. Can he take away your choice and still make you have choice? It's dumb and you know it.

For all we know it could be done, but there are obvious limitations to our ability to discuss or understand such things since the ideas are contradictory in our minds.

For example, tell me a story where time doesn't exist and I will point a few dozen examples of you violating that. That doesn't serve as proof that things can't exist outside of time, only that we DON'T.

You can't prove God can't be omnipotent simply our imaginations are limited.

By the way, good job avoiding the points. I would if I were you as well, since you really don't have a good argument.

So Christ has already had the second coming? Here's here? (Sorry, I haven't read the series so that doesn't explain much.)

No, it's a story of the apocalypse by a couple of biblical scholars. Again, I don't agree with some of their interpretations, but it shows that their interpretation exists and is popular.

[QUOTE=Jah Bootie]

No, it doesn't. You're choosing two opposite terms and acting like not being able to do both at the same time makes him not omnipotent. Can he take away your choice and still make you have choice? It's dumb and you know it.



That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "couldn't he give us choice and not cancer and famine and tsunamis and death and hell?" "Couldn't he forgive our sins without killing his son?" "Couldn't he make an appearance to assure us that he exists?" Everyone seems to say he can't do these things, which is a limitation and therefore proof that he is not omnipotent.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "couldn't he give us choice and not cancer and famine and tsunamis and death and hell?" "Couldn't he forgive our sins without killing his son?" "Couldn't he make an appearance to assure us that he exists?" Everyone seems to say he can't do these things, which is a limitation and therefore proof that he is not omnipotent.
The answer to all of those is yes. Yes, he could. You still avoided addressing all the points I made. Faith is the point. Faith, wisdom. If God makes an appearance it's not faith, it's knowledge and it completely takes the challenge out of life. And the challenge is why we're here. You want to be given the trophy of eternal life and perfection without ever playing the game. You're suggesting that if you had a choice to play in the championship or just be given the trophy you'd rather just get the trophy. Now this is where you say, but in this game if you lose you burn in hell.

Your argument only works against people who believe you go to hell if you don't figure it out. I don't hold that to be true, so you're not going to prove anything about MY God. You'll only prove that the God they are describing is not the God that exists.

You keep asking these questions like you think life isn't worth it, but you've admitted it is. And whether you go to nothing or you got to perfection, it's eternal. You're not trading this life for perfection (in my belief) or for nothing at all (in yours) because you can have both. So it's either worth it or not. I find it to be worth it.

[QUOTE=Jah Bootie]
The answer to all of those is yes. Yes, he could. You still avoided addressing all the points I made. Faith is the point. Faith, wisdom. If God makes an appearance it's not faith, it's knowledge and it completely takes the challenge out of life. And the challenge is why we're here. You want to be given the trophy of eternal life and perfection without ever playing the game. You're suggesting that if you had a choice to play in the championship or just be given the trophy you'd rather just get the trophy. Now this is where you say, but in this game if you lose you burn in hell.

Your argument only works against people who believe you go to hell if you don't figure it out. I don't hold that to be true, so you're not going to prove anything about MY God. You'll only prove that the God they are describing is not the God that exists.

You keep asking these questions like you think life isn't worth it, but you've admitted it is. And whether you go to nothing or you got to perfection, it's eternal. You're not trading this life for perfection (in my belief) or for nothing at all (in yours) because you can have both. So it's either worth it or not. I find it to be worth it.
If god showed up and said "follow me and everything will be great" it would take faith to follow him. I would have to have faith in god's honesty in order to believe that what god told me is true. What the christian religion demands is that I have faith in the human beings that claim to speak for god, and that in addition I choose the right human beings, not one of the competing sets of people that claim to speak for god.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm saying life isn't worth living, because I've never implied that in any way. I'm just saying that if god loved us he could do so much more for us.

If god showed up and said "follow me and everything will be great" it would take faith to follow him. I would have to have faith in god's honesty in order to believe that what god told me is true. What the christian religion demands is that I have faith in the human beings that claim to speak for god, and that in addition I choose the right human beings, not one of the competing sets of people that claim to speak for god.

I actually hold that it does require faith and that some will turn away even in that instance. But I believe you will get exactly that chance. The Christian religion is not one particular belief, so you're wrong. I don't believe you should listen to what people tell you to believe. I don't hold flesh or paper above my belief, which you would know if you read the thread. There are differing views on the subject. You are choosing one particular brand of Christians (with many sects) and using that to claim that God is unloving. I don't follow their beliefs and I'm not unique.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm saying life isn't worth living, because I've never implied that in any way. I'm just saying that if god loved us he could do so much more for us.
I'm not saying you are saying life isn't worth living, you're saying that a loving God wouldn't make you live it. So either it's worth it and it says nothing about a loving God or it's not.

I actually hold that it does require faith and that some will turn away even in that instance. But I believe you will get exactly that chance. The Christian religion is not one particular belief, so you're wrong. I don't believe you should listen to what people tell you to believe. I don't hold flesh or paper above my belief, which you would know if you read the thread. There are differing views on the subject. You are choosing one particular brand of Christians (with many sects) and using that to claim that God is unloving. I don't follow their beliefs and I'm not unique.


I'm not saying you are saying life isn't worth living, you're saying that a loving God wouldn't make you live it. So either it's worth it and it says nothing about a loving God or it's not.
If god ever meets me face to face I will have no trouble at all renouncing my atheism. The idea that all humans will have that opportunity is new to me, but I find it interesting. I hope it's true.

As far as life being worth living, it's living because it's the only thing we have. It is better than death, and it has its pleasures. But it's not nearly as good as it could be and loving someone means that you only want the very best for them.

If god ever meets me face to face I will have no trouble at all renouncing my atheism. The idea that all humans will have that opportunity is new to me, but I find it interesting. I hope it's true.

Of course you'll denounce your atheism. You can't not believe in something that's in front of you. That's not enough.

As far as life being worth living, it's living because it's the only thing we have. It is better than death, and it has its pleasures. But it's not nearly as good as it could be and loving someone means that you only want the very best for them.
Yes, but you don't get to decide what's best for you. Little kids think candy would be best for them every day. You may think you would be better off if there was no famine, no poverty, no war, no death, but you may thank God for those things when you've passed and look back at your life. Like a child, you don't have the context and experience to know that it's not loving to let you experience these things.

A question for... theists...

Why are you so concerned about Atheists and not others who don't necessarily believe in a God, i.e. Buddhists?

Of course you'll denounce your atheism. You can't not believe in something that's in front of you. That's not enough.

Not enough for what?

Yes, but you don't get to decide what's best for you. Little kids think candy would be best for them every day. You may think you would be better off if there was no famine, no poverty, no war, no death, but you may thank God for those things when you've passed and look back at your life. Like a child, you don't have the context and experience to know that it's not loving to let you experience these things.

Jacobia, you've made a lot of interesting comments so far. And while I appreciate your analogy, I think you perhaps should contemplate what you're saying here. You nearly caused me to break my computer in shock and horror.

Anyway, saying life is only worth living because it's the only one we got is silly. I choose to stay alive because I like it. Actually I love it to bits. Even the really bad parts, as soon as I've put them behind me. I never understood why nihilists bother.

.

Anyway, saying life is only worth living because it's the only one we got is silly. I choose to stay alive because I like it. Actually I love it to bits. Even the really bad parts, as soon as I've put them behind me. I never understood why nihilists bother.
Well, when your girlfriend breaks up with you, you will get over it. But if you got in a car wreck and became a parapalegic, I think you might have a different response.

Well, when your girlfriend breaks up with you, you will get over it. But if you got in a car wreck and became a parapalegic, I think you might have a different response.
You'd be wrong though. I doubt anything short of braindeath or very massive braindamage would make me wish for death. Not that I'd wish for anything if I were braindead, but I'd like to be remembered for my life. Permanent coma isn't how I want my friends to remember me.

Sure it would be a bitch to loose mobility, sight or whatever, but my world wouldn't be brought to a grinding halt. I'd still have plenty of things to do, people to talk to and ways to express myself. And really, that's what makes me happy. You're not much of an optimist, are you?

Besides, when things piss me off, I fight them. And I don't ever quit.

You'd be wrong though. I doubt anything short of braindeath or very massive braindamage would make me wish for death. Not that I'd wish for anything if I were braindead, but I'd like to be remembered for my life. Permanent coma isn't how I want my friends to remember me.

Sure it would be a bitch to loose mobility, sight or whatever, but my world wouldn't be brought to a grinding halt. I'd still have plenty of things to do, people to talk to and ways to express myself. And really, that's what makes me happy. You're not much of an optimist, are you?

Besides, when things piss me off, I fight them. And I don't ever quit.

I'm not saying you would wish for death. I'd like to think I would play whatever hand I was dealt too. I'm just saying we wouldn't be all that thankful for it.

Well, when your girlfriend breaks up with you, you will get over it. But if you got in a car wreck and became a parapalegic, I think you might have a different response.

Being born like this ain't all that much fun either.

originally Posted by The Similized World
You'd be wrong though. I doubt anything short of braindeath or very massive braindamage would make me wish for death. Not that I'd wish for anything if I were braindead, but I'd like to be remembered for my life. Permanent coma isn't how I want my friends to remember me.

Sure it would be a bitch to loose mobility, sight or whatever, but my world wouldn't be brought to a grinding halt. I'd still have plenty of things to do, people to talk to and ways to express myself. And really, that's what makes me happy. You're not much of an optimist, are you?

Besides, when things piss me off, I fight them. And I don't ever quit.

Try it sometime and see how hard it is to keep thinking positive. Don't speak to things you know nothing about. I hope you live a long, happy life and that you never find yourself, through accident or illness, with a disability. I doubt you could handle it. You wouldn't last a month. You're not nearly strong enough. :mad:

Originally posted by Jah Bootie
I'm not saying you would wish for death. I'd like to think I would play whatever hand I was dealt too. I'm just saying we wouldn't be all that thankful for it.

Thank you. At least someone gets it. Playing what you've been dealt, even if it sucks, is all you can do.

[QUOTE=The Similized world]You'd be wrong though. I doubt anything short of braindeath or very massive braindamage would make me wish for death.


This world may not always be a pile of crap, and can have some nice moments, but you must have no idea of the kind of shit out here that can hurt you, and make you wish you were dead.

Im guessing your a bit young maybe?
If so..thats cool, Im not trying to be condescending, but reality sucks, and even though you and I may never experience them, theres all sorts of possibilities that could take place to make us all wish we werent alive to bear the pain of what may occur.

To say on this forum, "I would never do this..or that" is almost always futile, becuase you never know what a person will do under cetain cirumstances, until those circumstances happen.

I could list off some gruesome shit for examples, but I think you can see where Im going.

[QUOTE=Jah Bootie]
The answer to all of those is yes. Yes, he could. You still avoided addressing all the points I made. Faith is the point. Faith, wisdom. If God makes an appearance it's not faith, it's knowledge and it completely takes the challenge out of life.


I gotta ask you a coupla questions.

Assuming we get one life, here on Earth, and *possibly* an afterlife, wich is spent in Paradise....

Our lives, here on earth are all we know of anything.
They are are our work, our loves, hopes and dreams, successes and failiures.
It is in our lives that we will accomplish our destinies.

But, If God, does not make himself known to us, while we are here, so as to reaffirm us that he is near...and not just by some book, or some vague notion that we are supposed to interperet...
Then arent we wasting our precious time, until we die, just to see him personally?

You say that it is becuase we are supposed to have faith, that he is there, and we will go to heaven when we die, and thats all well and good...

But what about the now?

If what you say is true, doesnt that trivialize our lives, here on Earth?

If God were all powerful, why not reward a couple of thousand years of faith, and show up, make a cameo, say something like "Hey...keep up the nice work!...gotta run!"

Over 6 billion sold, on the spot.

Read "The Case Against God" by George Smith for a full, rational explanation of why theism (and even agnosticism, theist or atheist) is irrational. Then read it some more to see why faith isn't a valid means of coming to knowledge. it's fascinating for anyone with any sense

[Offtopic rant]

I'm not saying you would wish for death. I'd like to think I would play whatever hand I was dealt too. I'm just saying we wouldn't be all that thankful for it.

Alright. I misunderstood you a bit. Thought you meant that people are better off dead than lame.
Of course it would be shit having anything like that happen to you, and I'm sure just about anyone would spend a couple of days or weeks, seriously considering whether it's worth going on.
Hell, having a nurse help you shit would ruin my day too. But most people deal with it, and feel grateful for having survived whatever shit happened. And I know I would, though probably not right after it happened.


Try it sometime and see how hard it is to keep thinking positive. Don't speak to things you know nothing about. I hope you live a long, happy life and that you never find yourself, through accident or illness, with a disability. I doubt you could handle it. You wouldn't last a month. You're not nearly strong enough.

This world may not always be a pile of crap, and can have some nice moments, but you must have no idea of the kind of shit out here that can hurt you, and make you wish you were dead.

Im guessing your a bit young maybe?
If so..thats cool, Im not trying to be condescending, but reality sucks, and even though you and I may never experience them, theres all sorts of possibilities that could take place to make us all wish we werent alive to bear the pain of what may occur.

To say on this forum, "I would never do this..or that" is almost always futile, becuase you never know what a person will do under cetain cirumstances, until those circumstances happen.

I could list off some gruesome shit for examples, but I think you can see where Im going.

Hard not to write something utterly obnoxious in response to this. However, the two of you might want to consider that most people, no matter how shitty a deal life turns out to be for them, manage to have good lives. Lives they wouldn't want to be without.
I have not lead a sheltered life, or even just a safe one. I am perfectly confident about my opinion, and I think I have reason to be. I'm not about to share the story of my life with any of you however. But I would appreciate if you two didn't spew inane shite about me. Thank you.
Just be thankful most people are capable of living good lives no matter what happens. I guess some time next week, I'll be hoping you two are among them.
- I'm 28 by the way.

[/Offtopic rant]

I think your rosey attitude is nice, if not realistic.

I think your rosey attitude is nice, if not realistic.
I think your faliure to appreciate life is shocking, and not very nice at all. I hope you some day learn life is a struggle, but worth the effort.
I'm far from sure I'd bother getting up in the morning if I shared your attitude.

I think your faliure to appreciate life is shocking, and not very nice at all. I hope you some day learn life is a struggle, but worth the effort.
I'm far from sure I'd bother getting up in the morning if I shared your attitude.


Quite the contrary, I indeed do have an appreciation for life, buts that becuase Ive lived on both sides of the street, so to speak.

What Im trying to convey to you, is that theres a slew of things that couls happen to you, to change your outlook on the life you have, so to say that you wouldnt do this thing, or that thing....is silly.

You never know how your going to react to any given situation, until you find yourself in that situation.

I dont think any teenage girls say "Boy I'd sure love to become a prostitute and give handjobs for crack!"

But it happens all the time.

Read "The Case Against God" by George Smith for a full, rational explanation of why theism (and even agnosticism, theist or atheist) is irrational. Then read it some more to see why faith isn't a valid means of coming to knowledge. it's fascinating for anyone with any sense

I sugest to you to read Ravi Zacharias's "Jesus amoung other Gods", Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" and Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a verdict"

*Shrug*

I'd suggest you all read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" simply as a good read, but since both sides of the argument seem keen to denounce anything related to Eastern Spirituality, that would probably go un-noticed at best, ridiculed at worst.

Lousy Bipartitianism... grumble moan...

I dont know how many times I'm going to have to deal with cemantics on this forum, so let me give a list of sets of words now, so that people can understand. Something you "should" or "shouldn't" do doesnt nessecarly revolve around morals.
Yes, it does. Necessarily. Whether or not I ought to do something is a choice, made freely, based on the correctness of the outcome, which in turn determines the rightness of the act. I guess you're going to have to deal with semantics until you get it right. ;-)

A child obeying or disobeying there parents may be doing something that is not nessecarly immoral or moral but they still should/should not do. Where as "good" and "evil" and "right" and "wrong" are moral words, and have a moral impact. It is "evil" and "wrong" to kill someone, becuase it is part of our morality, however it was not "evil" or "wrong" to eat the fruit, of itself because it had no consequences of itself.
Every act has consequences. Why do you say there are no consequences to eating? Oh, you're talking about "moral consequences," aren't you?

Whatever the subject of the "should" or "should't" question (and obedience is not exempt from this) we are making a choice that is dependent upon morality --the sense of right and wrong --making it an ethical decision, same as people make everyday when they decide "Should I steal this thing or not?" or "Should I put down the same answer as Soandso, or figure out the solution myself?" Now, if you want to change your proposition that the punishment was about whether or not they should obey, then you can proceed to explain the story again. But obedience is not exempt, and if it was about should and shouldn't, then they either had morals already or are blameless, as it really wasn't a choice.

The consequences came about not because the fruit was itself magical or special but because God had put a command around them. Adam and Eve did not have a sense of morality but they didnt need it. It wasnt a moral decsion revolving around "good" or "evil", "right" or "wrong". It simpley a decision of obediance or disobediance.
No, they needed it. Obedience does revolve around the rightness of the act, unless it is done mindlessly, willessly, by automatons. Then they could not be held responsible. Nothing we do is mindless; or, if you are proposing that Adam and Eve acted without minds/wills (which was actually the case, by the way, but that's another argument) then they were blameless. No real "choice" was made, as that requires will.

They did not have something "wrong" in them, they chose to do something wrong. It seems here your taking a causality factor, IE being "they did something wrong, something within themselves must have caused them to do it, therefore the thing within them is evil". However the thing that enabled them to eat the fruit was their own free will. Free will itself is not evil, but it can be used to do evil.
If they could choose to do wrong, then they have the capacity for wrong. That is what is "wrong with them."

No, it's a story of the apocalypse by a couple of biblical scholars. Again, I don't agree with some of their interpretations, but it shows that their interpretation exists and is popular.
But my question is, does this judgement take place in life or after?

Yes, it does. Necessarily. Whether or not I ought to do something is a choice, made freely, based on the correctness of the outcome, which in turn determines the rightness of the act. I guess you're going to have to deal with semantics until you get it right. ;-)

Every act has consequences. Why do you say there are no consequences to eating? Oh, you're talking about "moral consequences," aren't you?

Whatever the subject of the "should" or "should't" question (and obedience is not exempt from this) we are making a choice that is dependent upon morality --the sense of right and wrong --making it an ethical decision, same as people make everyday when they decide "Should I steal this thing or not?" or "Should I put down the same answer as Soandso, or figure out the solution myself?" Now, if you want to change your proposition that the punishment was about whether or not they should obey, then you can proceed to explain the story again. But obedience is not exempt, and if it was about should and shouldn't, then they either had morals already or are blameless, as it really wasn't a choice.

Look, I'm going to make this very clear to you, and speek to you in a language that even a telemarketing employee could understand. NOT ALL DECISIONS ARE MORALITY BASED. It's not always a question of "right" and "wrong" whether or not we do something. Adam and Eve were told to not eat the fruit. There was no reason behind the command itself, other than to display their obedience to God. The fruit itself was not dangerous or sentient and thus eating it would have been wrong. God just asked them to obey his command because of who he was. Because of the nature of God (which they understood) they should obey him and they knew that. It had nothing to do with wether or not there were any moral considerations. Let me give you an example. On an over head projector there may be a grill and beneath it there will be a note saying "Do not cover". Now the reason for that is that if you do cover it then the OHP may overheat and potentially explode. Thus the reason for the command is one of safety, so that people will not get hurt. Thus disobeying the command has moral consequences, which directly relate to the object itself. However, if a child is told by his parents "dont eat that packet of X sweets today" and then the child does, the parents will punish him themselves. There were no direct consequences of eating the sweets, they were not posinous or dangerous to the child. The punishment comes from the fact a command has been given not because of the nature of the action. The parents are not angry that the child has eaten the sweets, the sweets themselves are of no consequence. What is important is the fact that the child has disobeyed their command. The punishment comes as a result of the command being broken not the action itself. Adam and Eve did not need the sense to see that the act itself was morally wrong, it wasnt. All they needed (and had) was the sense to know that God had told them not to do it. There were no moral issues in the action, the only concern was the command.


If they could choose to do wrong, then they have the capacity for wrong. That is what is "wrong with them."

So you would make them so that they were actually incabable of doing wrong? Thats not what free will is.

Look, I'm going to make this very clear to you, and speek to you in a language that even a telemarketing employee could understand. NOT ALL DECISIONS ARE MORALITY BASED. It's not always a question of "right" and "wrong" whether or not we do something. Adam and Eve were told to not eat the fruit. There was no reason behind the command itself, other than to display their obedience to God. The fruit itself was not dangerous or sentient and thus eating it would have been wrong. God just asked them to obey his command because of who he was. Because of the nature of God (which they understood) they should obey him and they knew that. It had nothing to do with wether or not there were any moral considerations.
Let me give you an example. On an over head projector there may be a grill and beneath it there will be a note saying "Do not cover". Now the reason for that is that if you do cover it then the OHP may overheat and potentially explode. Thus the reason for the command is one of safety, so that people will not get hurt. Thus disobeying the command has moral consequences, which directly relate to the object itself. However, if a child is told by his parents "dont eat that packet of X sweets today" and then the child does, the parents will punish him themselves. There were no direct consequences of eating the sweets, they were not posinous or dangerous to the child. The punishment comes from the fact a command has been given not because of the nature of the action. The parents are not angry that the child has eaten the sweets, the sweets themselves are of no consequence. What is important is the fact that the child has disobeyed their command. The punishment comes as a result of the command being broken not the action itself. Adam and Eve did not need the sense to see that the act itself was morally wrong, it wasnt. All they needed (and had) was the sense to know that God had told them not to do it. There were no moral issues in the action, the only concern was the command.

1. How could they understand the nature of god or sin when they have no idea of right & wrong. It's like 'Comming to America'. African guy shouting 'Fuck you too!' because he has no idea what it means.

2. Alright, so I hear you say one thing, then another Christian says another. I myself am no authority on the subject, so i'm inclined to believe both of you equally. That's basically what you do when you have no frame of reference.
Of course, in my case, I'll be more inclined to believe the guy who says something I either think sounds nice or plausible. Because I have some knowledge of the world to compare your statements to.

3. So.. A parent will punish his/her child when the child is told one thing by the parent and the opposite of another adult... The child sees nothing wrong with either of the adults statements, and does not understand the implications of listening to one over the other... Yet the parent punished the child?! I don't think so mate. And if you do such things to your kids, you need a kick in the arse.

Look, I'm going to make this very clear to you, and speek to you in a language that even a telemarketing employee could understand. NOT ALL DECISIONS ARE MORALITY BASED. It's not always a question of "right" and "wrong" whether or not we do something.
This is true. However, we were discussing a decision of "should or shouldn't," and that is necessarily morally-based.

Adam and Eve were told to not eat the fruit. There was no reason behind the command itself, other than to display their obedience to God. The fruit itself was not dangerous or sentient and thus eating it would have been wrong. God just asked them to obey his command because of who he was. Because of the nature of God (which they understood) they should obey him and they knew that.
There's that "should" again. Yes; the nature of the Abrahamic God is morality. Therefore, they should have known, by his nature, that disobeying him was a sin.

It had nothing to do with wether or not there were any moral considerations.
God *is* the "moral consideration." He is Justice, He is Good, He is the Word.

Let me give you an example. On an over head projector there may be a grill and beneath it there will be a note saying "Do not cover". Now the reason for that is that if you do cover it then the OHP may overheat and potentially explode. Thus the reason for the command is one of safety, so that people will not get hurt. Thus disobeying the command has moral consequences, which directly relate to the object itself. However, if a child is told by his parents "dont eat that packet of X sweets today" and then the child does, the parents will punish him themselves. There were no direct consequences of eating the sweets, they were not posinous or dangerous to the child. The punishment comes from the fact a command has been given not because of the nature of the action.
But then you are looking at it from an objective angle, where it's not about what the child "should" do. If the child does not learn to obey, he will go through life a disrputive person. Obedience teaches us self-control and discipline. These things are the greater good, similar to "safety" in the above scenario. The parents who would punish disobedience, in the objective scenario, do so not because the child "did something he shouldn't," but to teach and enforce discipline, i.e. for a greater good. But if it *is* about what the child and should not do, then you make it a moral choice, from the child's subjective perspective. The child who obeys does so because he knows it is "right" to do what mom and dad say, because he has faith that what they command is good for him. There is very much an ethical choice for him.

The parents are not angry that the child has eaten the sweets, the sweets themselves are of no consequence. What is important is the fact that the child has disobeyed their command. The punishment comes as a result of the command being broken not the action itself. Adam and Eve did not need the sense to see that the act itself was morally wrong, it wasnt. All they needed (and had) was the sense to know that God had told them not to do it. There were no moral issues in the action, the only concern was the command.
Yes, Adam and Eve would need a sense of morality, of knowing what is the right and a wrong thing to do, in order to make a choice to obey. It is an ethical choice, from their perspective.

Originally Posted by Willamena
If they could choose to do wrong, then they have the capacity for wrong. That is what is "wrong with them."
So you would make them so that they were actually incabable of doing wrong? Thats not what free will is.
The statement I made has no implications about what I would do, but simply points out that your rewording of what I said of "what is wrong" with them should more properly be read in the former light. I did not say there was something "wrong with them," I said they had "wrong in them."

1. How could they understand the nature of god or sin when they have no idea of right & wrong. It's like 'Comming to America'. African guy shouting 'Fuck you too!' because he has no idea what it means.

For the 15th time (proberbly) IT WAS NOT A QUESTION OF RIGHT AND WRONG. It was a question of obedience. They knew who God was, they knew him better than we know him. They knew what the command was and they knew who God was so they knew to obey it. It wasnt a question of morality.


3. So.. A parent will punish his/her child when the child is told one thing by the parent and the opposite of another adult... The child sees nothing wrong with either of the adults statements, and does not understand the implications of listening to one over the other... Yet the parent punished the child?! I don't think so mate. And if you do such things to your kids, you need a kick in the arse.

The child should obey its parent, not another adult. Adam and eve knew who God was and what he was. They didn't know the serpent but because they knew that everything God said must be true (because of who God is and before you say it, the truth is not a moral entity) the can logically assume the serpent is lying.

The child should obey its parent, not another adult. Adam and eve knew who God was and what he was. They didn't know the serpent but because they knew that everything God said must be true (because of who God is and before you say it, the truth is not a moral entity) the can logically assume the serpent is lying.
Adam knew all the creatures, as each was made as a companion for him. He even got to name them. They must have known the serpent.

Adam knew all the creatures, as each was made as a companion for him. He even got to name them. They must have known the serpent.

The serpent was Satan himself.

This is true. However, we were discussing a decision of "should or shouldn't," and that is necessarily morally-based.


There's that "should" again. Yes; the nature of the Abrahamic God is morality. Therefore, they should have known, by his nature, that disobeying him was a sin.


God *is* the "moral consideration." He is Justice, He is Good, He is the Word.

I agree, my point is however that with what you say in mind they are still able to make the choice. It is not about morality in general (which they gain knowlege of as a reslut of eating the tree) and the knowledge of good and evil. Its just about obeying and disobeying God. My point being that they were still able to make the choice despite not being aware of Good and Evil.

For the 15th time (proberbly) IT WAS NOT A QUESTION OF RIGHT AND WRONG. It was a question of obedience. They knew who God was, they knew him better than we know him. They knew what the command was and they knew who God was so they knew to obey it. It wasnt a question of morality.

First of all: Obedience will almost always be based on ethics.
Secondly: Obedience has nothing to do with it. It's a case of conflicting information. As long as God & snake wasn't both talking to A&E and explaining what was going on, obedience or the lack of it, has nothing to do with anything.

The child should obey its parent, not another adult. Adam and eve knew who God was and what he was. They didn't know the serpent but because they knew that everything God said must be true (because of who God is and before you say it, the truth is not a moral entity) the can logically assume the serpent is lying.

A small child with no real frame of reference to anything should do no such thing. It should and will do what sounds reasonable.
Mother: "Kiddo, mum's popping out for a bit. Have fun, but don't raise your arms above your head."
The kid goes into the livingroom, where it's uncle is sitting
Uncle: "Hey kid, could you reach up and grab that pipe on the shelf over there for me?"
Kid: "Mum said not to raise my arms."
Uncle: "Hey it's quite alright. I'm sure she didn't mean you couldn't get my pipe for me, right?"
Kid: "Uhm.. Yea, guess so uncle."

Like I said: Conflicting information. Lack of reference. If you think it's warrented to punish a kid in this situation, I hope you'll never have any children.

A small child with no real frame of reference to anything should do no such thing. It should and will do what sounds reasonable.
Mother: "Kiddo, mum's popping out for a bit. Have fun, but don't raise your arms above your head."
The kid goes into the livingroom, where it's uncle is sitting
Uncle: "Hey kid, could you reach up and grab that pipe on the shelf over there for me?"
Kid: "Mum said not to raise my arms."
Uncle: "Hey it's quite alright. I'm sure she didn't mean you couldn't get my pipe for me, right?"
Kid: "Uhm.. Yea, guess so uncle."

Like I said: Conflicting information. Lack of reference. If you think it's warrented to punish a kid in this situation, I hope you'll never have any children.

Something wrong with the story. The uncle here didn't lure that kid. A&E were lured into eating the fruit for a gain they aren't supposed to have. Therefore, your story will have to be:

Uncle: Could you reach that pipe for me?
Child: Mom told me not to raise your hands.
Uncle: Mom's scared that if you raise your hands you will become taller than her. If you reach that pipe I'll help you steal candy from the store.
Child: Um...okay...I want to prove to Mom I'm talling than her and I want the candy.

Should the kid be punished?

If you reach that pipe I'll help you steal candy from the store.
Where did the serpent make a statement that corresponds to this in the analogy?

First of all: Obedience will almost always be based on ethics.
Secondly: Obedience has nothing to do with it. It's a case of conflicting information. As long as God & snake wasn't both talking to A&E and explaining what was going on, obedience or the lack of it, has nothing to do with anything.

First of all: No it isnt
Secondly: Adam and eve knew who God was, and that he would always tell the truth. They didnt know who the serpent was but since he was saying the oppisite to what God said and they knew who God was and that he always told the truth, they could assume the serpent was lying.


Like I said: Conflicting information. Lack of reference. If you think it's warrented to punish a kid in this situation, I hope you'll never have any children.

They had a refernence, that refence was God

Where did the serpent make a statement that corresponds to this in the analogy?
A loose reference to Satan's tempting of Jesus (Satan luring Jesus with the riches of the world).

This doesn't mean I deny the possibility of there being any kind of being I just think the possibility is very small

the possibility of there being a christian god is vanishingly small

note this is not a dig at religion some seem to make quite a lot of sense (especially the ranters (they believe that god is part of us and so its very liberal and nice really with very few sins (mainly killing without reason and taking away personal choice (like rape))))

but untill it can be proved to be the most likerly theory then i'm not believing it

but if you really can count me in for the font at the earliest opportunity

Not sure if this is germane to the topic anymore, but my skepticism is based on the reality that there isn't any particular reason to believe in God, the divinity of Jesus, or anything else of the sort. There are plenty of reasons to be a good person without being religious, and although some of the effects of organized religion are great (community building, social service, funding for arts and music, charity, etc.), we live in a society that no longer requires religion as a unifying tradition. Given some of the negative effects, I think it's best if people find spirituality through their own experience of the world rather than through a learned faith.

This doesn't mean I deny the possibility of there being any kind of being I just think the possibility is very small

the possibility of there being a christian god is vanishingly small


What probability analysis are you using? How can you mathmatically disprove God's existance by saying "theres a low chance".

Hmph. Again with the bipartitianism.

Athiesm is the alternative to Christianity. Christianity is the alternative to Athiesm.

Honestly, would you Athiests just try looking at a few other religions for a change rather than instantly rubbishing all of them because of the warped behaviour of a few members of a sect of one of them? I mean, just because the Christian idea of God is flawed doesn't mean that there's no possible way something like a "god" could exist. Like the "God Community"/"Cosmic Force" ideas, for instance.

I don't mind people arriving at a genuine conclusion of Athiesm after selectively ruling out various other faiths, but those who jump instantly from "Christians Are Wrong" to "No God Exists" should really take a good look at how much their belief is their own.


Oh, and to Mikheilistan, Reductio Ad Absurdium might be a good start.

Oh, and to Mikheilistan, Reductio Ad Absurdium might be a good start.

I havent heard of that expression, could you please elaborate as to what you mean

Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_Ad_Absurdum)

I'm afraid I've only studied the Rhetoric form of it, but it basically follows that if an impossible argument or an argument that can be denied by empirical observation is created as a direct result of your definition of God, then your definition needs to be corrected.

(Sorry for the spelling error, by the way)

First of all: No it isnt
Secondly: Adam and eve knew who God was, and that he would always tell the truth. They didnt know who the serpent was but since he was saying the oppisite to what God said and they knew who God was and that he always told the truth, they could assume the serpent was lying.

I'll let the first one slide for now, because it's way off topic.
The second one though: How did you arrive at that conclusion?
The point here is they didn't have a frame of reference. Noone had ever lied to them. Obviously, any idiot would accept clarification and explanation from the bloody snake if they don't know what is says is wrong.

They had a refernence, that refence was God
Wrong again. God didn't let them in on the snake bit, so they had no reference at all. Consider the poor buggers robots if you need to. When given conflicting information, the robot won't do shit. When the conflicting information comes with an explanation for WHY it's conflicting information, or why the information isn't really conflicting, the robot will do whatever it's told.
People really aren't different from that, not even after eating the damn fruit.

But I give up.

A question for... theists...

Why are you so concerned about Atheists and not others who don't necessarily believe in a God, i.e. Buddhists?

Atheists will argue with them. Atheists know theists will argue faith over logic and theists know atheists will argue logic over faith and never the twain shall agree.

well if you really are interested, the books I mentioned by Lee Strobel are very good. He interviews many experts and gives a lengthy bibliography of where he gets his own answers as well as usually a list of books and papers written by the experts that he interviews. Those books are chalked full of sources to find real and factual evidence. I'll see what else I can find on top of those.

The books are called The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator.

Strobel was the legal editor for the Chicago Tribune and an atheist. When his wife decided to be saved, he set out to disprove Christ. He used his newspaper skills to get the "real scoop" and now he's a minister.

Okay - I thought I'd read some Strobel, but none of the names are sticking out at me...

Tell me where you found the claim of 'evidence' for contemporary Roman documents, if you can - and I'll go out of my way to lay hands on that book... since ALL the evidence I've seen so far says there IS no such evidence.

Regarding 'setting out to disprove Christ'... you've been lied to, my friend.

I am an Atheist... I don't believe in the Christ story... but I'm not about to 'set out to disprove Christ', any more than I'm going to set out to 'disprove' the Easter Bunny or Ronald McDonald.

Any author who CLAIMS to have been converted as an 'Atheist' trying to disprove Christ (or ANYTHING), is lying to you, to sell books or an agenda.

Grave, I'm a little disappointed. You don't seem like the fish in a barrel type. Also, given you know how to make so much more reasonable arguments against God than are being presented here, I would expect you to be shaming these guys, much as I've pointed out the folly of the argument on my side. For the most part, this thread has completely degraded into, yah-huh, nuh-uh, yah-huh, nuh-uh.

I was out of the office for a few hours and I'm disappointed I wasn't around to try to reign it in.

Sorry about the fish in the barrel... they were like that when I got here...

I haven't been online much this weekend... too busy working on weekends. :( I didn't really get much of a chance to come in here and debate with anyone... so I just posted a few replies to obvious stuff.

I mean, seriously... if this guy (girl?) HONESTLY has verifiable, contemporary, independent evidence of the life and death of 'the man they called Christ', we're pretty much seeing a revolution in theology... and I'd really like to see such a thing.

I've HEARD STORIES of 'criminal records', etc... but I've yet to see anything that fits those three criteria: 1) verifiable, 2) contemporary and 3) independent.

Unfortunately - the best evidence I seem to be getting yet is: "I read it in this book once, but I can't tell you which one"....

Ah well, hopefully once I get into the new week (and so, have to work less) I might be able to put a bit more time in here.... and maybe get to cross swords with some worthy adversary.... if you are up for it. :)

My agnosticism (rather than full-blown atheism) is based on the fact that Christianity, Islam, and the religion from which they sprung: Judaism, were basically started by patricarchal extremists as a reaction to the predominant matriarchal pagan religions of the time.

Men were insecure about their sexual inferiority to women (who can bear children - hence their deification as 'creators' - and have orgasm after orgasm, while men are done after the first, by and large..), thus a small faction of mystics within the nomadic Hebrew people created a 'cult' of followers emphasising a masculine, conservative, logical god ('Yahweh/Jehova') to undermine the social and sexual dominace of women. It took a couple of thousand years, but eventually it gained enough popularity to act as a catalyst for the Hebrews' later escape and exodus from Egypt. Upon returning to Caanan, they found that it was full of Caananites, so slaughtered them all, for the 'Promised Land' in which they'd lived for only a couple of decades years previously.

All laws, politics, dogma, industry and economy are in one way or another based on maintaining a (forcibly seized) masculine dominance of society. It is entirely possible that the god Yahweh (aka 'God', Allah, Jehova) was a cynical artifical construct to bolster the cause of masculine dominance, emphasis on 'Father', 'Lord', 'Saviour' as opposed to 'Mother' 'Mistress' and 'Nature' - tenets common all over the world at that time (and some which remain today). Pagan rituals like sacrificing animals, having orgies, gazing at stars and constellations must have really got to these uptight, insecure, anal patricarch figures.

These modern religions all started off as cults, remember, no more or less credible than the Roman or Greek god panethon. Do you chuckle at stories of Dionysus - god of getting leathered and going on the piss - and his celestial buddies? Do you think: 'did people really and honestly believe that?'? Well, a 500BC Roman citizen would laugh at you for believing in an omnipotent fatherly god.. Who's right? It just so happened that the Yahweh-based religions gained massive popularity over a long drawn-out process of pitching, publicising, prosletysing, cajoling, commonly as a pretext for war or invasion (funny how things change :rolleyes: )..

So, sure, spirituality is important and a natural human instinct. But religion as a concept is a thinly-veiled example of social control, and I always wonder why people just can't seem to realise that. To me it seems glaringly obvious.

In laymens' terms: it's all a crock. Simple as.

Finally! Someone else who thinks the same as me!

I've been telling people that for about three years, and everyone says that I'm jealous that the Lord loves them more than me. :rolleyes:

And whenever I tell people - mainly my Christian friends - that certain Christian festivals were based on early Pagan festivals, they tell me that I'm delusional and need my head checking out. :mad: Rather offensive, I thought.

You're forgetting Adam had witnessed who God was. Adam knew Him. God created Eve. So she had God walking around telling her and she also had Adam to attest to it.

How did Adam witness God?

The Bible clearly says, in Genesis, that the world was already made before Adam was formed... it also says that the animals were made and then BROUGHT TO Adam - so he didn't see 'god' make them.

He didn't even see Eden being made... Genesis clearly states that he was brought to Eden AFTER it was constructed.

It continues with Adam being put to sleep while Eve is being constructed, and, once again, presented as a fait accompli.

Adam had no more 'knowledge' of the divinity of 'god', than Eve did.

And neither of them saw God 'made'... but, then, they didn't see the serpent being 'made', either... so, all entities in Eden are much the same from that objective view.

Sorry, friend... but you really are allowing YOUR knowledge of 'god' to intrude on what Adam or Eve COULD have known.

That's not in Genesis; it says nothing about not knowing about sex, and in fact, it does say that Eve's punishment was an increase in childbirthing pains (Genesis 3:16). It does say they did not know shame (making nudity a moral issue).

If they were not aware of their nakedness, it seems pretty unlikely they'd managed to capitalise on said bare bodies. It also claims that nakedness is a matter of good/evil - so we can fairly safely assume that all naked activities are a matter of good/evil, also.

I'm not sure about your version of Genesis 3:16... I'm looking at the KJV, and it doesn't say 'increase in childbirthing pains'... it says 'increase in childbirth AND pain: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception".

Genesis 3:16 continues "thy desire shall be to thy husband"... which, as part of the 'curse' on woman, strongly suggests that she had NO SUCH desire before hand.... thus, no childbirthing, and no desiring, and no nakedness... they were literal 'innocents'

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

Why do all Religious people think we atheist are Ignorant?

Hmph. Again with the bipartitianism.

Athiesm is the alternative to Christianity. Christianity is the alternative to Athiesm.

Honestly, would you Athiests just try looking at a few other religions for a change rather than instantly rubbishing all of them because of the warped behaviour of a few members of a sect of one of them? I mean, just because the Christian idea of God is flawed doesn't mean that there's no possible way something like a "god" could exist. Like the "God Community"/"Cosmic Force" ideas, for instance.

I don't mind people arriving at a genuine conclusion of Athiesm after selectively ruling out various other faiths, but those who jump instantly from "Christians Are Wrong" to "No God Exists" should really take a good look at how much their belief is their own.


Oh, and to Mikheilistan, Reductio Ad Absurdium might be a good start.

The string theory makes some good conversational points for "God is everything and everything is God" as the entanglement theory does also. The Lucifer Principle provides some interesting food for thought as to human memes and religions.

Reductio ad Absurdum works if you don't use an illogical premise to reach absurdity.

I'm a weak atheist(I don't assert that there is no god, I just don't assert that there is) not because of some materialistic world-view that claims that anything not analyzed by science is superstitious nonsense, in fact, I hold that view in the same position as I hold religion.

I'm an atheist not just because certain religions have many logical flaws, but because there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE THEM!!!

I have seen many religions presented as truth, and have never been given a real reason to believe them. It basically comes down to a charismatic person saying,"It's true because I say so." and convincing a bunch of fools who aren't thinking straight. Even if I was an empiricist, which I'm not, there is no solid evidence for religion.

If you're interested, you'd probably need to look for a qualified person to talk that you. I suggest you do that, not wanting you to miss the boss because the boss's rival will try anything to keep you away from the boss.

Of course... there's always the possibility that you think you work for Coke.. you have the hat and the uniform and everything... they even pick you up in a truck with the Coke logo on it...

But, maybe you really work for Pepsi, without your knowledge... and you've been pushing Pepsi to men, women and children for years, in blissful ignorance.

That's the problem with selling something you can't see through all the packaging.

My agnosticism (rather than full-blown atheism) is based on the fact that Christianity, Islam, and the religion from which they sprung: Judaism, were basically started by patricarchal extremists as a reaction to the predominant matriarchal pagan religions of the time. Men were insecure about their sexual inferiority to women (who can bear children - hence their deification as 'creators' - and have orgasm after orgasm, while men are done after the first, by and large..), thus a small faction of mystics within the nomadic Hebrew people created a 'cult' of followers emphasising a masculine, conservative, logical god ('Yahweh/Jehova') to undermine the social and sexual dominace of women. It took a couple of thousand years, but eventually it gained enough popularity to act as a catalyst for the Hebrews' later escape and exodus from Egypt. Upon returning to Caanan, they found that it was full of Caananites, so slaughtered them all, for the 'Promised Land' in which they'd lived for only a couple of decades years previously.

All laws, politics, dogma, industry and economy are in one way or another based on maintaining a (forcibly seized) masculine dominance of society. It is entirely possible that the god Yahweh (aka 'God', Allah, Jehova) was a cynical artifical construct to bolster the cause of masculine dominance, emphasis on 'Father', 'Lord', 'Saviour' as opposed to 'Mother' 'Mistress' and 'Nature' - tenets common all over the world at that time (and some which remain today). Pagan rituals like sacrificing animals, having orgies, gazing at stars and constellations must have really got to these uptight, insecure, anal patricarch figures.

These modern religions all started off as cults, remember, no more or less credible than the Roman or Greek god panethon. Do you chuckle at stories of Dionysus - god of getting leathered and going on the piss - and his celestial buddies? Do you think: 'did people really and honestly believe that?'? Well, a 500BC Roman citizen would laugh at you for believing in an omnipotent fatherly god.. Who's right? It just so happened that the Yahweh-based religions gained massive popularity over a long drawn-out process of pitching, publicising, prosletysing, cajoling, commonly as a pretext for war or invasion (funny how things change )..

So, sure, spirituality is important and a natural human instinct. But religion as a concept is a thinly-veiled example of social control, and I always wonder why people just can't seem to realise that. To me it seems glaringly obvious.

In laymens' terms: it's all a crock. Simple as.

Toally agree El Porro.

Where did the serpent make a statement that corresponds to this in the analogy?

Does anyone here really believe in a talking serpent? Anthropomorphism
Tree of life and a tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Animism

Why is the knowledge of good and evil "bad"?
Why were there "different" languages "before" the fall of the tower of Babel?
Did God approve of bestiality for Adam before Eve was created?
Why was man (male and female) created before Adam in the bible? Where are they now?
Why can't Hank Hanegraff find a verifiable miracle performed by the God of the faith movement?
Why does the Toronto Blessing provide drunks but not validated healings?

Not sure if this is classified as flamebait. If it is , Grave-n-Idle or Jocabia please let me know and I will remove it. :)

Please do us a favour. When you refer to 'God' meaning the Judeo-Islam-Christian god, please say that.

Don't assume that it is the only deity around...

Please bear a thought for all of the polytheist/pantheists around.

(Though strictly JIC is a polytheisic religion, but I digress)

BTW El Porro, I can understand your perspective, unfortunately it's wrong. Most of the pre-JIC (including those that JIC directly grew out of) were not matriarchal; some were, not all, not by a long way.

Ironically, the JIC mythology grew out of a polytheisic base - this is even aluded to, several times, in the Old Testament.

The serpent was Satan himself.

According to one telling of the story.

According to the earlier Mesopotamian versions... and, as indicated by the 'curse' levelled upon him, in the Hebrew version.... it's just a serpent.

Makes sense that they have to try to juggle the two entities together, though... because otherwise Genesis is a story about 'god' getting outwitted by a reptile.

A loose reference to Satan's tempting of Jesus (Satan luring Jesus with the riches of the world).

I think you are confusing your Bible stories, my friend...

Does anyone here really believe in a talking serpent? Anthropomorphism
Tree of life and a tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Animism

Why is the knowledge of good and evil "bad"?
Why were there "different" languages "before" the fall of the tower of Babel?
Did God approve of bestiality for Adam before Eve was created?
Why was man (male and female) created before Adam in the bible? Where are they now?
Why can't Hank Hanegraff find a verifiable miracle performed by the God of the faith movement?
Why does the Toronto Blessing provide drunks but not validated healings?

Not sure if this is classified as flamebait. If it is , Grave-n-Idle or Jocabia please let me know and I will remove it. :)

I wouldn't classify this as flamebait... unless I was going to go through the thread and say that every reference to salvation or hell was flamebait, too.

I have dozens of similar questions... and Keruvalia once posted a list of more than a hundred, which didn't get nearly enough attention. :)

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

So you want us atheists to read these three books and then get back to you huh ? No thanks. I'm done reading religious propaganda. It's interesting but just takes too much time.
Now if you just made a statement or a point, I could deal with that.

Originally Posted by Dragons Bay
The serpent was Satan himself.

The story does not say that the serpent was Satan, Lucifer, Baal, Beelzebul, nor the Devil. Just a serpent that walked and talked.

The adversary of Job was in the court of said God of the bible and didn't crawl in.

The devil myth is what first convinced me the bible was a collection of myths and fables interspersed with some history and hyperbolic war stories. Then the flood myth in comparison to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Then the whole Israel conquering Caanan when there is no archaelogical evidence to support the hyperbole.

According to one telling of the story.

According to the earlier Mesopotamian versions... and, as indicated by the 'curse' levelled upon him, in the Hebrew version.... it's just a serpent.

Makes sense that they have to try to juggle the two entities together, though... because otherwise Genesis is a story about 'god' getting outwitted by a reptile.

Reptiles don't talk. It had to be Satan.

I think you are confusing your Bible stories, my friend...
Just merging similar meanings into the analogy.

Sorry about the fish in the barrel... they were like that when I got here...

I haven't been online much this weekend... too busy working on weekends. :( I didn't really get much of a chance to come in here and debate with anyone... so I just posted a few replies to obvious stuff.

I mean, seriously... if this guy (girl?) HONESTLY has verifiable, contemporary, independent evidence of the life and death of 'the man they called Christ', we're pretty much seeing a revolution in theology... and I'd really like to see such a thing.

I've HEARD STORIES of 'criminal records', etc... but I've yet to see anything that fits those three criteria: 1) verifiable, 2) contemporary and 3) independent.

Unfortunately - the best evidence I seem to be getting yet is: "I read it in this book once, but I can't tell you which one"....

Ah well, hopefully once I get into the new week (and so, have to work less) I might be able to put a bit more time in here.... and maybe get to cross swords with some worthy adversary.... if you are up for it. :)

I'll keep an eye out. I hope you don't mind if I take that as a compliment. I have to say I like the arguments you're making now much better. I have no right to admonish you, but it just bugs me when these ridiculous arguments some of these people are making get treated by anyone as if they are worthwhile. If you ever catch me getting sucked in, feel free to kick me in the ass.

Because God doesn't interfere in his creation?

Then why do we bother worshiping him. :mp5:

Reptiles don't talk. It had to be Satan.

You're right, reptiles don't talk. But before we leap to the conclusion that it must have been a supernatural entity, could we not at least consider the possibility that it's just a story? Aslan the lion talks in C S Lewis's Narnia books. But lions don't talk. Then again, Aslan's supposed to be Jesus. But it's still just a story.

I never got a reply to this question from Mikheilistan. Maybe you can give me an answer. According to your beliefs, Jesus was God. Jesus told parables. These were stories which were not literally true, but which illustrated a point. Do you not think it possible that even some parts of the Bible -- say the ones which we can clearly physically demonstrate are untrue, such as practically all of Genesis -- might not just be stories as well, told by God if you want, to illustrate some other point?

Are you not aware that the romans kept census records? Or records of executions? There are records documenting His crucifixion. You can't be crucified if you don't exist.
I said the jesus YOU propose existed ... walking on watter and all
Not some document that someone that has a name simmilar may or may not have been a criminal and punished in the area

everything is falsifiable and I know what scientific theory is. Every so-called scientific theory on the origin of life proposed turns out either absurdly and astronomically improbable or doesn't answer the question at all. Most only move the problem somewhere else. Like the "life came to earth via a comet" theory. That doesn't answer to the origin, it only moves the origin somewhere else.
Nope god as a force is non falsifiable there is no way to disprove that an all powerful being did not magically do something in a way that is beyond our ability to check

As such the idea of a god is non falsifiable because he would theoretically have infinite ability to disguise himself

Are you not aware that the romans kept census records? Or records of executions? There are records documenting His crucifixion. You can't be crucified if you don't exist.


Where? I have never come across them? Or do you mean Tacitus passing reference? Please source your claims.

well if you did, you'd know that even though we love our kids, we don't give them everything they want. Why would God do that to us?
There is a difference between not giving your kids everything and punishing them eternally … one has a set length one is just giving up on them