NationStates Jolt Archive

the same reason we don't. Because everything we want is not always what we need.
Again there is a difference between not fulfilling our every whim and punishing us for eternity, one we recover and learn from … the other is an irresponsible act that if a human parent attempted to neglect their kid in the same way would be thrown in jail and locked away (rightfully so)

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.
Yes, they are able to make this choice, and yes, not all choices are moral ones. But my point was, "should and shouldn't" choices are moral ones.

A loose reference to Satan's tempting of Jesus (Satan luring Jesus with the riches of the world).
But it didn't happen like that in Genesis. Dragons Bay has introduced information to the story that was not written. Isn't there some commandment by Paul against that?

What probability analysis are you using? How can you mathmatically disprove God's existance by saying "theres a low chance".
He's not talking probabilities, he's talking possibilities.

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:
That made me laugh.

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.
I'm impressed that you still consider them friends. Well done.

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.
Although "capitalizing" these days is all about awareness of naked bodies, if they were 'naturally' naked in the Garden then sex then would not have been about nakedness. Does that make sense? I disagree with the latter, because it is awareness of nakedness that is a matter of good/evil, not nakedness itself. They could have participated in "capitalization" unawares (which is the case, as it symbolizes the goddess religions that went before).

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'
My version was the New International Version, which is the default at Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/).

Sorrow is childbirth? Conception is pain? How sad. ;)

No such desire for husbands? I never noticed that before. I'm curious as to why the word "husband"; wasn't marriage introduced later, outside the Garden?

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. :)
We are attempting to discuss Christianity in the context of Christianity, whether we believe it or not.

I don't think it's flamebait.

Then why do we bother worshiping him. :mp5:
Oh, I see. God exists to serve you?

Does anyone here really believe in a talking serpent? Anthropomorphism

Depends on what version of the story you believe. In some stories it was Satan. Also, as some have mentioned, there is really no knowing, one, if the serpent was actually talking or just being understood and, two, if Adam and Eve couldn't communicate with all of the animals in the same way.

Tree of life and a tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Animism

Not a problem if you consider it an allegory or parable as I do, but either way, you are taking a story that is supposed to be about a COMPLETELY different world (same planet, different rules) and trying to apply it to the world that now exists.

Why is the knowledge of good and evil "bad"?

Again, depends who you ask. I hold that this a story about the responsibility that we have now that we have our huge brains. It's common for the Bible to state that children and the mentally ill are not held to the same standards as someone who can understand good and evil and the implications of it. This story is about how our wonderful ability to understand right and wrong, to understand the ideas of justice and fairness, makes us responsible for ourselves in a wholly different way than animals (as they don't have this ability).

As is said in Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility." What wisdom can't you find in Spiderman comic books?

Why were there "different" languages "before" the fall of the tower of Babel?

It's a parable. I believe it was meant to teach "because I can" is not a good reason to do something.

Did God approve of bestiality for Adam before Eve was created?

Silly question. I won't bother with an answer. What's you next question? Can God create a rock even he couldn't lift? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?

Why was man (male and female) created before Adam in the bible? Where are they now?

Not all stories are told in order. Even seen memento? It talks about the creation of the Earth, the animals, the plants and humans, then it goes back and goes into more detail. I suggest you read it again.

Why can't Hank Hanegraff find a verifiable miracle performed by the God of the faith movement?

If you could prove God exists, it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge.

Why does the Toronto Blessing provide drunks but not validated healings?

Silly question. Why did the Yankees win so many World Series'? I don't think anyone here is supporting the Toronto Blessing so who do you expect to answer this question? Moreover, what does it have to do with the faith of anyone here? Nothing. How about you try to focus your questions on the topic at hand instead of a general broad attack on anything that could be seen as Christian.

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. :)

Not flamebait as I would define it, but my guess is that since you asked you were intending to create a problem or at least suspected that these questions would. My advice is that you word your questions in a way that encourages a intelligent discussion about the things your interested in. If you do this it's highly unlikely you'll ever be accused of flamebait. See, the problem with your questions is there is NO ONE that would be able to answer all of them as you mixed as many types of Christianity together as you had questions. You might as well have asked by why Jews wear yamulkas?

We are attempting to discuss Christianity in the context of Christianity, whether we believe it or not.

I don't think it's flamebait.

Exactly. I don't think that post was actually intended to generate intelligent discussion of any type. I think I'll go back an update my reply to this post.

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.

it wasn't an apple. The bible just calls it fruit.

You ever give a child a choice of behaving right or getting spanked? You give the choice. You can choose to straighten up, or you can choose to be punished. The choice is up to the child. If that child makes the wrong choice, the punishment follows. That is similar to what happened to Eve. They were given the choice to do what was right OR eat the forbidden fruit and be punished. They chose wrong and they were punished.

God created us to sin.


No, God did NOT create us to sin. He created us with the choice to sin. There's a big difference

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.

He did, and He died for you. And He does, if you are truly willing and open in your heart.

I'd like to just step into this thread and inject some social liberty ideals.

Everyone, look at it this way; You own your life, nobody has the right to control your life. Conversely, you don't have the right to control anyone elses life. With that established, lets say that your faith (or a lack there of) is an extension of your life. By attempting to force your ideals on another, you're thus violating another persons civil liberties.

So, by trying to convert someone from their personal views and beliefs over to your own, you're also denying a person their human right to live freely. Please keep that in mind as you read this thread, and stop being condescending just because someones beliefs differ from yours.

Originally Posted by BackwoodsSquatches
God created us to sin.
No, God did NOT create us to sin. He created us with the choice to sin. There's a big difference
An important distinction should be made, here, that addresses either motive or nature.

"God creaed us to sin" implies motive, and you correctly point out that that was not his *purpose*. However, we have the capacity to sin, and therefore, it is part of our nature. In that sense, "God created us to sin" is not incorrect, albeit generalized.

it wasn't an apple. The bible just calls it fruit.

You ever give a child a choice of behaving right or getting spanked? You give the choice. You can choose to straighten up, or you can choose to be punished. The choice is up to the child. If that child makes the wrong choice, the punishment follows. That is similar to what happened to Eve. They were given the choice to do what was right OR eat the forbidden fruit and be punished. They chose wrong and they were punished.

But God didn't give them that choice. He didn't tell them that it was wrong to eat the apple, he said that "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die". He didn't tell them that it was right or wrong, he just told them that it was dangerous. The serpent told them that this was untrue (as indeed it turned out to be, unless you start making all sorts of twists and turns around what God meant by "die").

And, after they made the wrong choice, God didn't just punish Adam and Eve: he punished the whole human species. And he didn't just punish the serpent, or even just the serpent's species: he punished all snakes. That's an entire suborder. How is that just?

He did, and He died for you. And He does, if you are truly willing and open in your heart.
He died with the expectation of being raised … its kind of like working with an all powerful safety net … its just not as impressive

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 not sure I believe this is a true story. However, if it is, then your pastor isn't a Christian, he's a lunatic. I'm a Christian and I condemn that sort of behavior. Your pastor should have had that 2X4 stuck up his ass. Christians aren't purer of heart, but a true Christian will ATTEMPT to be and will seek forgiveness when they fail.

An important distinction should be made, here, that addresses either motive or nature.

"God creaed us to sin" implies motive, and you correctly point out that that was not his *purpose*. However, we have the capacity to sin, and therefore, it is part of our nature. In that sense, "God created us to sin" is not incorrect, albeit generalized.
God created me to be a sex machine :D … think the terminator but sexier :p

I'm not sure I believe this is a true story. However, if it is, then your pastor isn't a Christian, he's a lunatic. I'm a Christian and I condemn that sort of behavior. Your pastor should have had that 2X4 stuck up his ass. Christians aren't purer of heart, but a true Christian will ATTEMPT to be and will seek forgiveness when they fail.


Fanatics exist in all religions, Christianity included. It isn't much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that this sort of thing goes on in the world. That said, it shouldn't be a reflection apon the religion as a whole, and history is filled with those who took their religion too far and used it as an excuse to inflict pain apon their fellow man.

I'd like to just step into this thread and inject some social liberty ideals.

Everyone, look at it this way; You own your life, nobody has the right to control your life. Conversely, you don't have the right to control anyone elses life. With that established, lets say that your faith (or a lack there of) is an extension of your life. By attempting to force your ideals on another, you're thus violating another persons civil liberties.

So, by trying to convert someone from their personal views and beliefs over to your own, you're also denying a person their human right to live freely. Please keep that in mind as you read this thread, and stop being condescending just because someones beliefs differ from yours.

I'd like to reply to you as Bill Cosby does to his son when he claims his father should love him for who he is instead of requiring good grades of him, but I won't. Instead, I'll say this, your comments deny intelligent discussion. Explaining your point of view and trying to convince people it is valid is a healthy and intelligent way to reinforce your beliefs, to polish them, to better understand them and to amend them. I don't know you, but the people I do know are quite capable of thinking for themselves and rejecting information they find invalid. What a horrible world we would live in if no one ever shared their views about life with someone else, a world where each person has to start from scratch when attempting to unravel the mysteries life offers.

I'm sorry you have so little faith in the ability of people to make decisions.

I'd like to reply to you as Bill Cosby does to his son when he claims his father should love him for who he is instead of requiring good grades of him, but I won't. Instead, I'll say this, your comments deny intelligent discussion. Explaining your point of view and trying to convince people it is valid is a healthy and intelligent way to reinforce your beliefs, to polish them, to better understand them and to amend them. I don't know you, but the people I do know are quite capable of thinking for themselves and rejecting information they find invalid. What a horrible world we would live in if no one ever shared their views about life with someone else, a world where each person has to start from scratch when attempting to unravel the mysteries life offers.

I'm sorry you have so little faith in the ability of people to make decisions.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified my statement. There is a fine line between intelligent discussion and aggressive conversion. Intelligent discussion is fine, but what I was referring to in my post was more of a "You're wrong, I'm right, believe me or else" type of conversation. I guess you missed the part where I said attempting to force your beliefs on another person is a violation of their civil rights. Again, there is a difference between intelligent discussion and aggressive conversion.

But by all means, continued to be a condescenting twat and take what I say out of context.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified my statement. There is a fine line between intelligent discussion and aggressive conversion. Intelligent discussion is fine, but what I was referring to in my post was more of a "You're wrong, I'm right, believe me or else" type of conversation. I guess you missed the part where I said attempting to force your beliefs on another person is a violation of their civil rights. Again, there is a difference between intelligent discussion and aggressive conversion.

Actually, you have a strange understanding of civil rights. How can person #1 write a post under the rules of this forum and person #2 who understands the rules of this forum read that post, only for you to decide it's a violation of their civil rights. What civil right gives a person a right to not have their beliefs challenged, even vehemently? What civil right says I can't say to you, "believe me or else"? What civil right is that a violation of? It's not as if people are following you around forcing you to listen or invading your home.

"So, by trying to convert someone from their personal views and beliefs over to your own, you're also denying a person their human right to live freely." Don't act like you were only talking about when people force their beliefs. You clearly are suggesting that conversion to another belief system is a violation of civil rights. Suggesting that people shouldn't be permitted to have freely entered into discussions about faith is suggesting a violation of civil rights however (except you don't have the power to enforce your belief).

Actually, you have a strange understanding of civil rights. How can person #1 write a post under the rules of this forum and person #2 who understands the rules of this forum read that post, only for you to decide it's a violation of their civil rights. What civil right gives a person a right to not have their beliefs challenged, even vehemently? What civil right says I can't say to you, "believe me or else"? What civil right is that a violation of? It's not as if people are following you around forcing you to listen or invading your home.

"So, by trying to convert someone from their personal views and beliefs over to your own, you're also denying a person their human right to live freely." Don't act like you were only talking about when people force their beliefs. You clearly are suggesting that conversion to another belief system is a violation of civil rights.

I think you're just trying to justify aggressive conversion, honestly. By saying "Believe me or else", you're violating my right to believe in what I want to believe

But by all means, continued to be a condescenting twat and take what I say out of context.

I think you might want to work on that intelligent discussion/aggressive conversation thing yourself.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified my statement. There is a fine line between intelligent discussion and aggressive conversion. Intelligent discussion is fine, but what I was referring to in my post was more of a "You're wrong, I'm right, believe me or else" type of conversation. I guess you missed the part where I said attempting to force your beliefs on another person is a violation of their civil rights. Again, there is a difference between intelligent discussion and aggressive conversion.

But by all means, continued to be a condescenting twat and take what I say out of context.

See you shouldn't have added that, friend. I will take that to say, "please report me to moderation." Who am I to reject your request?

See you shouldn't have added that, friend. I will take that to say, "please report me to moderation." Who am I to reject your request?


Meanwhile, I'm still having trouble understanding how you can fail to understand a basic right to freedom of religion.

I think you're just trying to justify aggressive conversion, honestly. By saying "Believe me or else", you're violating my right to believe in what I want to believe

Actually, unless I actually force someone to hold my beliefs, then I'm doing no such thing. You have a right to believe in what you want to believe no matter what I say.

Meanwhile, I'm still having trouble understanding how you can fail to understand a basic right to freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion includes the right to discuss religion, strongly if you wish. I can spend all day looking at people and say, "you're wrong", "you're a sinner", "you smell like ham and feet" and not be violating their right to believe whatever they like, including that I'm a twat. However, here you don't have the right to actually call people names, since this forum is owned by someone who is not you and they have made rules. They are available on the general page and they are a worthwhile read.

Intelligent discussion is fine, but what I was referring to in my post was more of a "You're wrong, I'm right, believe me or else" type of conversation.
Whew! Good thing no one here was doing that.

Freedom of religion includes the right to discuss religion, strongly if you wish. I can spend all day looking at people and say, "you're wrong", "you're a sinner", "you smell like ham and feet" and not be violating their right to believe whatever they like, including that I'm a twat. However, here you don't have the right to actually call people names, since this forum is owned by someone who is not you and they have made rules. They are available on the general page and they are a worthwhile read.
Yeah people forget the right to free speech includes the right to disagree

Just because I respect their right to say what they say does not mean I have to respect their opinion nor agree

(not commenting on this specific situation more just in general)

Whew! Good thing no one here was doing that.
Your WRONG ABOUT THAT!!11!!
If you don’t believe me too BAD!!

Whew! Good thing no one here was doing that.

I say we just trudge onward. There's really nothing to gain here other than allowing the thread to further go off topic.

So who do you think would win in a fight? Adam or Moses?

Your WRONG ABOUT THAT!!11!!
If you don’t believe me too BAD!!
Well, I'll have to believe you, now! God made you a sex machine!

Yeah people forget the right to free speech includes the right to disagree

Just because I respect their right to say what they say does not mean I have to respect their opinion nor agree

(not commenting on this specific situation more just in general)

Yes, exactly. Now, stop inserting your thoughts into my head, my ears are starting to bleed.

You know it would have been a lot more fun if your post about disagreements would have had something worth disagreeing with. Wait, found one. You're wrong. You ARE commenting on this specific situation, as well as being general.

Well, I'll have to believe you, now! God made you a sex machine!

Does anyone know how to make your nostrils stop aching after forcing Wild Cherry Pepsi through them? You suck, Willamena.

I'm sorry you have so little faith in the ability of people to make decisions.
But by all means, continued to be a condescenting twat and take what I say out of context.
Both of you, knock off the passive-agressive flaming.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

So who do you think would win in a fight? Adam or Moses?
Haha.. Well... um... Adam grew up in a garden, made soft and weak by an easy life. So I guess Moses.

Yes, exactly. Now, stop inserting your thoughts into my head, my ears are starting to bleed.

You know it would have been a lot more fun if your post about disagreements would have had something worth disagreeing with. Wait, found one. You're wrong. You ARE commenting on this specific situation, as well as being general.
Possibly but I did not want to infer as I had not read back far enough to determine if you had in-fact had tried to force belief (or advocate forcing belief in this case) so I wanted to make it clear that I was not “taking sides” :)

Haha.. Well... um... Adam grew up in a garden, made soft and weak by an easy life. So I guess Moses.

I was thinking the same thing.

Does anyone know how to make your nostrils stop aching after forcing Wild Cherry Pepsi through them? You suck, Willamena.
My apologies.

Let's get back to topic.

Do you wonder if God really exists then?
I found this really helpful before I became a christian....

If God exists…
Why is there so much pain and suffering?
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut. As the barber set to work, they began discussing various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said, “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out into the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left, when he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair. The customer turned back and re-entered the barber shop, saying to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the surprised barber. “ I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!”
“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair, like that man outside.”

“But barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.”
“Exactly!” affirmed the customer.
“That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”


And a fantastic book to read is "The shock of your life" by Adrian Holloway
http://www.theshockofyourlife.com/

Both of you, knock off the passive-agressive flaming.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Pardon? Did you just compare my comment on his demonstrated lack of faith in people to calling me a twat? He directly suggested that telling someone they're wrong can force them to believe something. Perhaps I haven't read the rules where it says when someone demonstrates a belief in something be certain not to put that belief in words. I'm annoyed and offended by the suggestion.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified my statement. There is a fine line between intelligent discussion and aggressive conversion. Intelligent discussion is fine, but what I was referring to in my post was more of a "You're wrong, I'm right, believe me or else" type of conversation. I guess you missed the part where I said attempting to force your beliefs on another person is a violation of their civil rights. Again, there is a difference between intelligent discussion and aggressive conversion.

But by all means, continued to be a condescenting twat and take what I say out of context.

I disagree still. Having a intelligent discussion and still be an aggressive one. Its still a discussion and is not "forced". No one is forced to participate or even read the discussion. No one is dragging someone else into it. The discussion is clearly a religious one by the nature of the title. Anyone joining in, does so of their own free will. Just as you did. Choosing to join, and then complaining of having the discussion forced on you is just silly.

Possibly but I did not want to infer as I had not read back far enough to determine if you had in-fact had tried to force belief (or advocate forcing belief in this case) so I wanted to make it clear that I was not “taking sides” :)

Nah, I don't s/he was talking to me when they suggesting someone was trying to force someone to believe. Especially since I've declared openly, repeatedly, that I don't believe in telling someone about my faith unless I permit them to tell me about theirs as well (the Golden Rule and all).

I think you're just trying to justify aggressive conversion, honestly. By saying "Believe me or else", you're violating my right to believe in what I want to believe

Only if he has a way of forcing you to believe him. You still have the right to believe what you want, no matter what he says. :rolleyes:

Actually, unless I actually force someone to hold my beliefs, then I'm doing no such thing. You have a right to believe in what you want to believe no matter what I say.


LOL! That's EXACTLY how I answered it before I got to your response. Almost word for word. :D

Do you wonder if God really exists then?
I found this really helpful before I became a christian....

If God exists…
Why is there so much pain and suffering?
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut. As the barber set to work, they began discussing various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said, “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer. *sneip*
That post was a marvelous parable, and a good argument. Thanks for that.

I love that, dispite numerous people trying to say the same thing in a direct fashion in many, many posts, an analogy is actually the best way to demonstrate the point. It drives the message home in a way that is (to me, at least) undeniable. That's the whole point of mythology, too; to demonstrate meaning in a non-literal fashion.

Does anyone know how to make your nostrils stop aching after forcing Wild Cherry Pepsi through them? You suck, Willamena.

:D

That post was a marvelous parable, and a good argument. Thanks for that.

I love that, dispite numerous people trying to say the same thing in a direct fashion in many, many posts, an analogy is actually the best way to demonstrate the point. It drives the message home in a way that is (to me, at least) undeniable. That's the whole point of mythology, too; to demonstrate meaning in a non-literal fashion.

Which is why Jesus and the Bible both use parables. I think it's a very effective method for educating and explaining. I try to use parables all the time.

Which is why Jesus and the Bible both use parables. I think it's a very effective method for educating and explaining. I try to use parables all the time.

I try to use a parables all the time too, but sometimes the wife has a headache. :p

Do you wonder if God really exists then?
I found this really helpful before I became a christian....

If God exists…
Why is there so much pain and suffering?
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut.

*snip*

“That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”

Hmm. I'm not convinced that the reason there are children in Niger whose skins are peeling off because of malnutrition is because they haven't got up and gone off looking for God.

Hmm. I'm not convinced that the reason there are children in Niger whose skins are peeling off because of malnutrition is because they haven't got up and gone off looking for God.

No but it could be because their parents and ancestors didn't.

No but it could be because their parents and ancestors didn't.

I don't accept this in any way, shape or form.

As an atheist, and having looked in to the books mentioned, I have to say that their arguments are, as these arguments are so often, completely faith based and lacking in true scientific fact.

Do you wonder if God really exists then?
I found this really helpful before I became a christian....

If God exists…
Why is there so much pain and suffering?
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut. As the barber set to work, they began discussing various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said, “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out into the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left, when he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair. The customer turned back and re-entered the barber shop, saying to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the surprised barber. “ I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!”
“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair, like that man outside.”

“But barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.”
“Exactly!” affirmed the customer.
“That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”


And a fantastic book to read is "The shock of your life" by Adrian Holloway
http://www.theshockofyourlife.com/


Ah, I see. God's not actually a sadistic prick, He just doesn't give a shit. Or perhaps he wants us to screw up just so he could say "serves you right for not being Fundie assholes and making everyone else do as you say"? Why should you get to decide what God's will is? Do you claim to know the mind of God? I know, I know... "it's god who reveals his will". Wrong. You Fundies are pushing your own agenda and claiming to speak for God. If I truely believed God were either that sadistic or that laissez-faire, I wouldn't even want to keep trying. Evidently, I have a much different view of him than you do. I have to believe Jesus was preaching love and respect or I wouldn't even be able to get up in the morning.

No but it could be because their parents and ancestors didn't.

So your god punishes the children because of the "sins" of their parents. Sins that they had no involvement in whatsoever and could not have stopped at all? Sounds like a pretty shitty god to me.

Do you wonder if God really exists then?
I found this really helpful before I became a christian....

If God exists…
Why is there so much pain and suffering?
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut. As the barber set to work, they began discussing various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said, “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out into the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left, when he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair. The customer turned back and re-entered the barber shop, saying to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the surprised barber. “ I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!”
“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair, like that man outside.”

“But barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.”
“Exactly!” affirmed the customer.
“That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”


And a fantastic book to read is "The shock of your life" by Adrian Holloway
http://www.theshockofyourlife.com/


The difference is the barber is not necessarily “all loving” and not necessarily punishing long dirty hared people for all eternity for their not believing he is the one and only barber

You would figure with a thing like eternal pain hanging over these dirty long haired peoples heads the barber would put a little more work into it … go out and talk to everyone individually … give them the information about his hair cutting in a way they can understand rather then some ancient sometimes confusing and seemingly contradictory pamphlet about his hair cutting specially when not only can you not be dirty and long haired you cant go to any barber but him… as such that if a person does it does not count as a “true” haircut and you are also punished along with all the long haired people


In the end parables are fun but do not necessary cover the depth of the subject … just make people think they do

No but it could be because their parents and ancestors didn't.

I'm with Jocabia on this one. That's a terrible, awful kind of God you've got up and running there, in my opinion. How anyone could worship such a creature for any reason other than terror, I can't imagine. My parents didn't go to God or look for God, and my skin is just fine. The overwhelming majority of every single human being's ancestors didn't worship the Judeo-Christian God. Why pick on the babies in Niger, now?

So your god punishes the children because of the "sins" of their parents. Sins that they had no involvement in whatsoever and could not have stopped at all? Sounds like a pretty shitty god to me.
Yes the whole fall of man thing seems pretty unfair to me as well (no one said life is fair but I guess that is gods making as well)

As an atheist, and having looked in to the books mentioned, I have to say that their arguments are, as these arguments are so often, completely faith based and lacking in true scientific fact.

Rearly, can you elaborate rather than making such a blanket and unfounded stament.

Rearly, can you elaborate rather than making such a blanket and unfounded stament.

I did. You didn't address it.

Hmm. I'm not convinced that the reason there are children in Niger whose skins are peeling off because of malnutrition is because they haven't got up and gone off looking for God.
:confused:

:confused:
He was saying that he does not believe all worldly suffering and pain can be directly attributed to a lack of “searching” for god

Ah, I see. God's not actually a sadistic prick, He just doesn't give a shit. Or perhaps he wants us to screw up just so he could say "serves you right for not being Fundie assholes and making everyone else do as you say"? Why should you get to decide what God's will is? Do you claim to know the mind of God? I know, I know... "it's god who reveals his will". Wrong. You Fundies are pushing your own agenda and claiming to speak for God. If I truely believed God were either that sadistic or that laissez-faire, I wouldn't even want to keep trying. Evidently, I have a much different view of him than you do. I have to believe Jesus was preaching love and respect or I wouldn't even be able to get up in the morning.
Now *that's* flamebait.

I don't consider myself athiest because i believe in some sort of greater power. I have been called a heathen because I refuse to go to a building build by a man once a week and listen to what the bible means to him. Religion has gotten in the way of faith. My faith, while I can't fully explain it, is strong. But it is my own. I don't try to explain what the bible means to me to other people, nor do I feel anyone else has the right to do such to me.

What annoys me is that many of the fundamentalist christians read the bible and take what they want from it, abbreviate passages to fit their needs and the like, while promoting "values" like discrimination, then using the Bible as their justification. THAT is why I don't consider myself christian, because many promote god as if he is a father with a willow switch waiting for us to fuck up, and i refuse to believe that god has so much anger.

Jer

In the end parables are fun but do not necessary cover the depth of the subject … just make people think they do
The point of the parable is only to make one point, not to cover the subject.

Frankly, I think that would be quite impossible in a parable.

The point of the parable is only to make one point, not to cover the subject.

Frankly, I think that would be quite impossible in a parable.
Yes but some are better then others :p

I did. You didn't address it.

I wasnt talking to you

He was saying that he does not believe all worldly suffering and pain can be directly attributed to a lack of “searching” for god
Okay, so he's making the same point that parable did. Okay.

EDIT: Ah, I read that wrong. My bad.

So, if he gave us free will, why does he order us to do good and worship him? Wouldn't it be easier to not give us free will and make us do all of that anyways.

Seems kind of funny, he gives us free will and then orders us to bow down and worship him like mindless drones. :rolleyes:

Praising someone or something that has no control over their actions makes no sense. Do we praise inanimate objects for being inanimate? No. Free will creates a moral space in which human beings are accountable for their actions. Now, if you read the Bible, God doesn't command that we bow down and worship him like mindless drones, because then we wouldn't be doing it on our own accord or out of our free will and thus doing so would not be praise worthy. Read Genesis. God tells Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit. They eat it. They get kicked out.




So, anyone who does use this free will he gave us and becomes a free thinker is evil because he does not do as god commanded.


If you use your free will you are a "free thinker," whatever that means. But rejecting the truth doesn't seem to really make you free though, in my opinion.



And if god is omnipotent and omniscient, he could see this evil going to be caused (more contradictions here about him being a timeless being) if he gave free will, so why the hell does he bother to give us free will?


He could see the evil that was going to happen regardless. I think you misunderstand the role of evil and evil actions in determining salvation. Doing horrible things doesn't alienate you from God because you did it, but because you turned yourself from him. There is a chance to repent and change your way. And who is to say that there has to be evil and free will for us to eventually reject so that we can be worthy of God's love, since we have free will?


God himself does not have free will, being omnipotent and omniscient, he sees what will happen in the future, and being devoted to good, he can't make any other choice but the choice that will preserve good. So god himself doesn't have free will.

Unless God chose for it to work that way. Your argument is circular. You are saying that because God decided to be committed to good and make a good world, and since the world is created by God, that it must have been necessary for God to creat it, which is not true.

Hmm. I'm not convinced that the reason there are children in Niger whose skins are peeling off because of malnutrition is because they haven't got up and gone off looking for God.

Read the first chapter of "The Case for faith" by Lee Strobel. It explains why suffering and god are indeed coexistant.

I wasnt talking to you
And that’s part of the problem … you pick on the one post wonder when someone here spent the time to really deal with the topic in the past and you just dismiss them

Not really a good debating tactic
(makes you seem unwilling to take on the “tough” questions)

Okay, so he's making the same point that parable did. Okay.
No the parable said

“That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”

It says that pain and suffering is because of the lack of people searching for god or “coming” to god

While Jeldred is essentially saying he does not think that our lack of “coming” to god is the cause of all the pain on the earth

I wasnt talking to you

So you're saying you're not here to actually deal with the gaps and problems with these books, but instead just keep pushing them on people in the hope that you'll find someone who didn't read them critically? You brought them up and I pointed out the many problems and logical issues that these books don't deal with. Would you like to address the point or avoid it?

So you're saying you're not here to actually deal with the gaps and problems with these books, but instead just keep pushing them on people in the hope that you'll find someone who didn't read them critically? You brought them up and I pointed out the many problems and logical issues that these books don't deal with. Would you like to address the point or avoid it?

I dont know if you noticed, but I am not the one who brought up "the shock of your life". Now someone else brought up the original 3 books, and said they were flawed. I asked them why they thought that. I did not ask you.

Can anyone here offer any reason why suffering in the world somehow makes the possibility of God's existence logical and disgusting? Many people have said that they find the idea of a God who created a world in which such horrible things happen disgusting. But it would seem that you [or we] should be more disgusted with ourselves since we, as people living in this world, have more to do with how it is than a God who created it.

I can understand that you find it horrible that horrible things are happening in the world. But to blame it all on God, instead of yourselves or past events done by people, seems foolish.

You: Ohhhh my!!!! Dying children!!!! Curse the God who created them and created such a horrible world for them to live in!!!!
Person walking by: Ummm.... Your fathers created the sqaulid conditions in which these children live and you are perpetuating their condition.
You: Shut the f**k up!!! I HATE GOD. It's all God's fault!!!!

So exactly why does suffering in the world make God so horrible?

I dont know if you noticed, but I am not the one who brought up "the shock of your life". Now someone else brought up the original 3 books, and said they were flawed. I asked them why they thought that. I did not ask you.
Well she is bringing it up now and bringing up her rebuttal

Do you wish to deal with her addressale of those books or ignore it?

Hmm. I'm not convinced that the reason there are children in Niger whose skins are peeling off because of malnutrition is because they haven't got up and gone off looking for God.

Read the first chapter of "The Case for faith" by Lee Strobel. It explains why suffering and god are indeed coexistant.

Personally, I think you shouldn't. I think there is a case to be made for why suffering and a loving God can coexist, but this book does not make it. It makes intentional leaps in logic and avoids huge and obvious issues that one would have with this kind of work. Basically, it makes a flawed argument and then continues to make it more flawed throughout the entirety of the book. I'm not sure why anyone would want to hold this book up as an argument when it's so easy to poke holes in the logic.

I recommend reading the Bible along with the documentation of as many other faiths as you can find the time to explore. I found my faith by exploring the faith of many, many others while keeping an open mind and heart.

You can find a reasoned review of the book recommended above earlier in the thread along with direct quotes from the book and explanations of how they are flawed.

Can anyone here offer any reason why suffering in the world somehow makes the possibility of God's existence logical and disgusting? Many people have said that they find the idea of a God who created a world in which such horrible things happen disgusting. But it would seem that you [or we] should be more disgusted with ourselves since we, as people living in this world, have more to do with how it is than a God who created it.

I can understand that you find it horrible that horrible things are happening in the world. But to blame it all on God, instead of yourselves or past events done by people, seems foolish.

You: Ohhhh my!!!! Dying children!!!! Curse the God who created them and created such a horrible world for them to live in!!!!
Person walking by: Ummm.... Your fathers created the sqaulid conditions in which these children live and you are perpetuating their condition.
You: Shut the f**k up!!! I HATE GOD. It's all God's fault!!!!

So exactly why does suffering in the world make God so horrible?


Just because man complicates the issue does not get god off the hook for not protecting innocents

Well she is bringing it up now and bringing up her rebuttal

Do you wish to deal with her addressale of those books or ignore it?

He. But thanks.

He. But thanks.
I apologize I get so used to Spanish where names that end with a are generally feminine and O masculine


Sorry :)

Oh, I see. God exists to serve you?



I didn't say that. I asked what the point of worshipping him is?
"innocent question"
:fluffle: :mp5:

Evil & suffering can be considered as evidence in favour of God's existance for this simple reason. Without God, how do we know what is and isnt evil. Think about it for a minute. For centuries philosphers have tried to define morality but have always failed to come up with a general rule. All they have done however is managed to define what morality has done for society. Kant's moral arguement for the existance of God points to the fact that since morality clearly exists, even if we cannot define it, there must be something which has defined the morality which is greater than us, and then concludes that that thing is God.

Just because man complicates the issue does not get god off the hook for not protecting innocents

You make it sound like God is accountable to the rule books of men, that he's supposed to protect innocents from pain. If you read the Bible you will see that in it the point is made that God has protected one's eternal soul but the body is of the world and must suffer through it. If one's eternal soul was protected by God but not ones temporary body, would you have a problem with that?

Evil & suffering can be considered as evidence in favour of God's existance for this simple reason. Without God, how do we know what is and isnt evil. Think about it for a minute. For centuries philosphers have tried to define morality but have always failed to come up with a general rule. All they have done however is managed to define what morality has done for society. Kant's moral arguement for the existance of God points to the fact that since morality clearly exists, even if we cannot define it, there must be something which has defined the morality which is greater than us, and then concludes that that thing is God.

What's the general rule of what is and isn't evil held by all religious folks or even all Christians? Admit it, you don't have any simple answer to that any more than philosophy does. The closest thing that I've ever seen as defining good and evil (that most people can agree with) is the idea of the social contract and our obligation to further the human race rather than just individuals.

Just because man complicates the issue does not get god off the hook for not protecting innocents

Just a question, where in the Bible do you get the notion that protecting innocents is God's job?

And another thing, where in the Bible do you get the notion of being "innocent" from. You see, you and many athiests on this forum are guilty of assuming that God conforms to human standards of who a "good" and "bad" person are. But thats not who God is. God conforms (suprisingly enough) to God's standards, and because of sin, those are standards that we cannot reach, no matter how hard we try. Fortunetly for us, God understands that problem which is why he sent Jesus to die for us.

You make it sound like God is accountable to the rule books of men, that he's supposed to protect innocents from pain. If you read the Bible you will see that in it the point is made that God has protected one's eternal soul but the body is of the world and must suffer through it. If one's eternal soul was protected by God but not ones temporary body, would you have a problem with that?
No god is not necessarily accountable to the rules of men but I can hardly worship someone that goes against my personal morals

And to me the Christian god is morally wrong on some points

As for your question one truly protected our eternal souls rather then making his judgment off of a time when we are imperfect … surrounded by confusion with out clear full knowledge and using that to either reward us or punish us for an eternity seems to be something not befitting an all loving and all powerful deity

Just a question, where in the Bible do you get the notion that protecting innocents is God's job?
I don’t know the “all loving” part of the traditional description of god … you figure someone with the power and the supposed drive would want to protect innocents

Otherwise he is either A) not powerful enough or B) does not care enough about them to do something about it

i think your right about the controling the masses stuff. and ya things probley just started of as a cult but over time it became excepted with humanities need for power approval and anwsers

Just a question, where in the Bible do you get the notion that protecting innocents is God's job?

And another thing, where in the Bible do you get the notion of being "innocent" from. You see, you and many athiests on this forum are guilty of assuming that God conforms to human standards of who a "good" and "bad" person are. But thats not who God is. God conforms (suprisingly enough) to God's standards, and because of sin, those are standards that we cannot reach, no matter how hard we try. Fortunetly for us, God understands that problem which is why he sent Jesus to die for us.
Ahhh original sin … so they are suffering because they exist … and their mere existence and their inability to truly conform are the reason they are suffering

Again god can conform to his standards … but if to me he is morally wrong I hardly think on my part he deserves worship

No god is not necessarily accountable to the rules of men but I can hardly worship someone that goes against my personal morals

Have you ever revered or thought very highly of someone who did something that you thought was morally questionable? I bet you have. But the fact is that if there is a God, it's is probably he is who correct on the moral compass seeing he created the universe and all.

It also seems odd that we are willing to more or less worship and revere imperfect and very flawed people here on Earth, full well knowing of their sometimes horrible imperfections, while we are unable to ackownledge the greatness of God on the qualm that, "I have some moral disagreements with God."


And to me the Christian god is morally wrong on some points


Again if God decided morality, he is de facto correct.


As for your question one truly protected our eternal souls rather then making his judgment off of a time when we are imperfect … surrounded by confusion with out clear full knowledge and using that to either reward us or punish us for an eternity seems to be something not befitting an all loving and all powerful deity

I don't see the confusion... It's very simple. You love God and do good. You do the latter simply because of your own personal ethic, I assume. I don't really see how all of that is clouded in confusion, the message is very simple.

I don’t know the “all loving” part of the traditional description of god … you figure someone with the power and the supposed drive would want to protect innocents

Otherwise he is either A) not powerful enough or B) does not care enough about them to do something about it
B) That's because we're annoying ants who keep trying to blow up the beautiful world he's made for the smart animals, like whales.
A) Not exactly omnisciepent, is he then?

I don’t know the “all loving” part of the traditional description of god … you figure someone with the power and the supposed drive would want to protect innocents

Otherwise he is either A) not powerful enough or B) does not care enough about them to do something about it

For this part, firstly see the edited answer I made to your earlier post and secondly, its precisely because he loves us that evil occurs. In order to prevent evil, God would have to circumvent free will. Thats not what God wants. He didnt want a race of mindless automatons. He wanted people with the ability to choose. In a world without evil (without the choice to do evil) would also be a world without love, and without the ability to love. Real love has to come from a choice, thats only logical. If you force someone to love you its not real love.

Have you ever revered or thought very highly of someone who did something that you thought was morally questionable? I bet you have. But the fact is that if there is a God, it's is probably he is who correct on the moral compass seeing he created the universe and all.

Counterpoint: A computer programmer creates a program that simulates existence by starting from a big bang and allowing evolution to occur along a set of pre-defined physical laws. Civilisation arises. The Creator believes that killing criminals is justified. Does that make killing criminals justified in that digital world?

Why should deciding mortality necessary decide morality?

Have you ever revered or thought very highly of someone who did something that you thought was morally questionable? I bet you have. But the fact is that if there is a God, it's is probably he is who correct on the moral compass seeing he created the universe and all.

It also seems odd that we are willing to more or less worship and revere imperfect and very flawed people here on Earth, full well knowing of their sometimes horrible imperfections, while we are unable to ackownledge the greatness of God on the qualm that, "I have some moral disagreements with God."



Again if God decided morality, he is de facto correct.



I don't see the confusion... It's very simple. You love God and do good. You do the latter simply because of your own personal ethic, I assume. I don't really see how all of that is clouded in confusion, the message is very simple.


Only clear if you start from a position of faith … incredibly milky when you conceder all the options

If there is an all loving god out there he will ask me what I want when I pass away … if not … fuckem

For this part, firstly see the edited answer I made to your earlier post and secondly, its precisely because he loves us that evil occurs. In order to prevent evil, God would have to circumvent free will. Thats not what God wants. He didnt want a race of mindless automatons. He wanted people with the ability to choose. In a world without evil (without the choice to do evil) would also be a world without love, and without the ability to love. Real love has to come from a choice, thats only logical. If you force someone to love you its not real love.
No we could still have free will without the existence of sin

I don’t have the ability to naturally breath underwater right now … does that mean I do not have free will because that option is not available to me?

Rearly, can you elaborate rather than making such a blanket and unfounded stament.
Mate, that statement was entirely founded in reality and try as you might, there is nothing you can say that will make the statement untrue or even slightly wrong.

Science and religion can't mix. It just doesn't work that way. Not unless you retract the notion that religion is supernatural, but if you do that, the statement will still be true, it will just disprove all religions of the world.

No the parable said

“That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”

It says that pain and suffering is because of the lack of people searching for god or “coming” to god.

While Jeldred is essentially saying he does not think that our lack of “coming” to god is the cause of all the pain on the earth
The point is that god can no more be held responsible for pain and suffering when people don't "come to him," as the barber can be for cutting hair when people don't come to him. "Come to him" is referring to belief. This suggests that belief in god can alleviate pain and suffering. This is demonstratable true, people take comfort in it. Their belief and faith can "move mountains." It does not suggest that god causes or alleviates pain and suffering.

Mate, that statement was entirely founded in reality and try as you might, there is nothing you can say that will make the statement untrue or even slightly wrong.

Science and religion can't mix. It just doesn't work that way. Not unless you retract the notion that religion is supernatural, but if you do that, the statement will still be true, it will just disprove all religions of the world.

Eastern religions are generally pro-science. They're arguably more spiritual, too, but this spirituality tends to be based on issues not entirely supernatural...

The two can mix. What's there to say that a creator can't use physical laws to create a plane of existence? In fact, arguably, we're not that far from doing that ourselves with computer science. If you could become God, it's reasonable to assume that the existence of a God is not very unlikely.

I didn't say that. I asked what the point of worshipping him is?
"innocent question"
:fluffle: :mp5:
Well, it is implied in what you said. :)

If worshiping god is to get something from him, in the way of material changes in the world, then he exists to serve you in the sense that "ye ask and ye shall receive" (which is a misquote).

We worship things because we want to, because we think they're cool enough to be worshipped. It has nothing to do with whether god affects changes in the world (gives us something).

I don’t know the “all loving” part of the traditional description of god … you figure someone with the power and the supposed drive would want to protect innocents

Otherwise he is either A) not powerful enough or B) does not care enough about them to do something about it
or C) he suffers greatly.

If there is an all loving god out there he will ask me what I want when I pass away … if not … fuckem
Yeah... cuz it's all about what you want. :)

Eastern religions are generally pro-science. They're arguably more spiritual, too, but this spirituality tends to be based on issues not entirely supernatural...

Whether a religion or philosophy rejects or embraces science, has no bearing on science's ability to encompass them.
I think it's great that not all religious people dismiss science. I'd think it was greater still, if they realized that science will never be able to handle religion.

The two can mix. What's there to say that a creator can't use physical laws to create a plane of existence? In fact, arguably, we're not that far from doing that ourselves with computer science. If you could become God, it's reasonable to assume that the existence of a God is not very unlikely.
The two can mix - No. Religion can do whatever it pleases with the scientific method, but the scientific method cannot even question religion. Or it wouldn't be science at all. Simple really ;)

So what's there to say a god can't use the laws of physics or indeed have created them? The answer is not a thing. At least not anything based in science. There's no way science can examine such a claim, so it just can't say anything about it. My own common sense leads me to believe that the supernatural and/or divine doesn't exist, but that's not science.

A new plane of existence? Hmm.. Do you mean the future of the internet perhaps? In that case, (almost) regardless of how it turns out, it won't actually be a new plane of existence. It may feel like it, but it's just a construct. Possibly you could have a philosophical debate about what exactly qualifies a plane, but I think that would be too far off the topic at hand.

If we could become gods? That sounds pretty brilliant! But I don't actually see it happen. We can already become gods in our own constructs - imaginary or real - but in the real world, we're still just humans. Not to say I didn't get a kick out of pretending to be the son of the god of murder in Baldurs Gate, but I think you get the point, right?
Still, who knows? Plenty of fantasy and sci-fi have examined the possibility. But really, there are no observations of anything that imply the possibility of such a thing ever happening, just like there are no observations that even hint at supernatural/divine influence.

I would like to pose a question though, because you bend my mind in a new direction (thanks for that by the way).
What would really stop God from having us worthship him and retain free will?

See I've read a couple of comments in this thread that suggests we're not really 'whole beings' (my interpretation) when we don't worthship God.

That's a pretty interesting thought to me, especially when considering our own collective ideas about artificial intelligence and robots. Asimov proposed the famous First Law. It makes artificial (emotional) intelligence incapable of harming humans, by action or the lack of it.

Why didn't god do something similar? While it may limit our choices a bit, I do not see how something similar would limit our growth as humans or our happiness.
Especially considering the possibility that the lot of us unbelievers might face eternity of brutal torture just for failing to love something we honestly don't think exist.

Yeah... cuz it's all about what you want. :)
Not necessarily but anything else goes against my personal morals again and in my eyes he does not then deserve my worship

I can be wrong … very possibly but if he cares he will spend the time to understand me and my problems with his organized religion (not necessarily his existence)

Mate, that statement was entirely founded in reality and try as you might, there is nothing you can say that will make the statement untrue or even slightly wrong.

Science and religion can't mix. It just doesn't work that way. Not unless you retract the notion that religion is supernatural, but if you do that, the statement will still be true, it will just disprove all religions of the world.

We are not discussing Creation or Evolution here. We are discussing philosophy and theology. Science does not come into it.

The point is that god can no more be held responsible for pain and suffering when people don't "come to him," as the barber can be for cutting hair when people don't come to him. "Come to him" is referring to belief. This suggests that belief in god can alleviate pain and suffering. This is demonstratable true, people take comfort in it. Their belief and faith can "move mountains." It does not suggest that god causes or alleviates pain and suffering.
Some suffering not all … there are many that have “come” to Christianity and are still suffering in the physical world (the world covered by the parable) a

Well, it is implied in what you said. :)

If worshiping god is to get something from him, in the way of material changes in the world, then he exists to serve you in the sense that "ye ask and ye shall receive" (which is a misquote).

We worship things because we want to, because we think they're cool enough to be worshipped. It has nothing to do with whether god affects changes in the world (gives us something).
Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstand what you're saying, but didn't you tell me once, the point of a relationship with god is simply love?

I thought it was a sort of intellectual affair?

No we could still have free will without the existence of sin

I don’t have the ability to naturally breath underwater right now … does that mean I do not have free will because that option is not available to me?

Your talking about physical boundries, not deciaonal mental ones. You are quite within your mental ablilities to go underwater now, you wont be able to breathe though. However that isnt a matter of a decision, its a physical reality. If God were to make you physically incapable of sin it wouldnt be you making a real choice. Sin is not like the ablity to breathe, its not a physical construct.

Your talking about physical boundries, not deciaonal mental ones. You are quite within your mental ablilities to go underwater now, you wont be able to breathe though. However that isnt a matter of a decision, its a physical reality. If God were to make you physically incapable of sin it wouldnt be you making a real choice. Sin is not like the ablity to breathe, its not a physical construct.
Its only god that sets the boundaries

If you had all the options you do now but god does not consider any of them “sin” would you still be free even if there was no sin?

We are not discussing Creation or Evolution here. We are discussing philosophy and theology. Science does not come into it.
You responded to a statement about science. I corrected you. I didn't mean it as an invitation to stray off topic, so sorry.

No god is not necessarily accountable to the rules of men but I can hardly worship someone that goes against my personal morals

And to me the Christian god is morally wrong on some points

As for your question one truly protected our eternal souls rather then making his judgment off of a time when we are imperfect … surrounded by confusion with out clear full knowledge and using that to either reward us or punish us for an eternity seems to be something not befitting an all loving and all powerful deity

You can have clear full knowledge, but you have to be willing to look, to study, and to believe. Those who seek shall find.

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.
Patriarchal religions are older than European pagans. If you'll remember, they developed in totally different areas. While the pagans of Europe were still running around with sticks and animal skins, we were developing the wheel, fighting great battles, and founding the religions of modern day.

No we could still have free will without the existence of sin

I don’t have the ability to naturally breath underwater right now … does that mean I do not have free will because that option is not available to me?
Free will is not the number of options available to you, nor is it your ability to choose from the options. It's about what you can choose about.
EDIT: That's a typo, it should read "It's not about what you can choose about."

Will is the activity of a consciousness; a conscious mind asserting itself. If it does this "freely," with an action it itself determines, then that is will freely exercised (as opposed to a destiny determined by god or fate, or coercion by another).

If we are coerced by another into doing something that is "against our will," then we are not wholly responsible for that action, because we resisted in some way. If, on the other hand, our course is determined by god or fate, then we have no will whatsoever, for these things are "forces" beyond our control. If god decides any part of our destiny for us, we are automatons.

Sin is not a thing, it (like cold, and dark) is an absence of a thing. We cannot "lack" it, even if we wanted to; we can only lack its opposite, which is generally defined as "the presence of god" or "doing god's will." When we "do god's will," that means we align our actions to be in accord with what we know to be good, and right, and true (i.e. god). We can lack these things, and call ourselves "full of sin," but sin is still not a real thing that can be subtracted from the world.

You can have clear full knowledge, but you have to be willing to look, to study, and to believe. Those who seek shall find.
I did … it lead me away from Christianity (notably Catholicism) and it made me a happier person for the search

Free will is not the number of options available to you, nor is it your ability to choose from the options. It's about what you can choose about.

Will is the activity of a consciousness; a conscious mind asserting itself. If it does this "freely," with an action it itself determines, then that is will freely exercised (as opposed to a destiny determined by god or fate, or coercion by another).

If we are coerced by another into doing something that is "against our will," then we are not wholly responsible for that action, because we resisted in some way. If, on the other hand, our course is determined by god or fate, then we have no will whatsoever, for these things are "forces" beyond our control. If god decides any part of our destiny for us, we are automatons.

Sin is not a thing, it (like cold, and dark) is an absence of a thing. We cannot "lack" it, even if we wanted to; we can only lack its opposite, which is generally defined as "the presence of god" or "doing god's will." When we "do god's will," that means we align our actions to be in accord with what we know to be good, and right, and true (i.e. god). We can lack these things, and call ourselves "full of sin," but sin is still not a real thing that can be subtracted from the world.


That’s what I was trying to point out but I guess I did it badly

Some suffering not all … there are many that have “come” to Christianity and are still suffering in the physical world (the world covered by the parable) a
Yes, they suffer, and they find relief in their beliefs. Both suffering and relief are emotions, and therefore temporal in nature. They are not absolutes.

Counterpoint: A computer programmer creates a program that simulates existence by starting from a big bang and allowing evolution to occur along a set of pre-defined physical laws. Civilisation arises. The Creator believes that killing criminals is justified. Does that make killing criminals justified in that digital world?

Why should deciding mortality necessary decide morality?

or how about this one


A computer programmer creates a program that simulates existence by starting from a big bang and allowing evolution to occur along a set of pre-defined physical laws. Civilisation arises. The Creator believes that killing crickets is immoral. Civilization decides to override the creator and make it justified. Why should the created have the power to override the creator in that digital world?

You responded to a statement about science. I corrected you. I didn't mean it as an invitation to stray off topic, so sorry.

I responded to a statement which said that the books sugested at the begining were unscientific. My point was however that they are not about science, they are about theology, philosophy and history. Thus the claim that they are unscientific is wrong.

Yes, they suffer, and they find relief in their beliefs. Both suffering and relief are emotions, and therefore temporal in nature. They are not absolutes.
But the original parable addressed pain as well … not necessarily an emotion (can be but not necessarily)

Only clear if you start from a position of faith … incredibly milky when you conceder all the options

If there is an all loving god out there he will ask me what I want when I pass away … if not … fuckem


He may just do that. He may ask you what you want. That doesn't mean He has to give it to you. I'm pretty sure it won't be HIM that is fucked at that moment in time.

No we could still have free will without the existence of sin

I don’t have the ability to naturally breath underwater right now … does that mean I do not have free will because that option is not available to me?

ok give us your scenario on how THAT would work

Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstand what you're saying, but didn't you tell me once, the point of a relationship with god is simply love?

I thought it was a sort of intellectual affair?
I'm not sure what I said that may have caused confusion for you.

God is love. Religion is a relationship with god. The "point" of it would be different and personal for each person who is forming a relationship.

He may just do that. He may ask you what you want. That doesn't mean He has to give it to you. I'm pretty sure it won't be HIM that is fucked at that moment in time.
Maybe not but then by my definition god would not be all loving … hardly worth my worship

Ehh oh well whatever

Mate, that statement was entirely founded in reality and try as you might, there is nothing you can say that will make the statement untrue or even slightly wrong.

Science and religion can't mix. It just doesn't work that way. Not unless you retract the notion that religion is supernatural, but if you do that, the statement will still be true, it will just disprove all religions of the world.

not true.

ok give us your scenario on how THAT would work
What I was trying to point out was that our freedom of choice does not hinge on the choices being possible we still have the ability to choose even if we can not act on that choice

There are a whole host of mental and physical limitations placed on individual humans … does that mean because some of our freedoms are limited that we don’t have free choice?

Would we still have free choice if sin was beyond our limitations to choose?

If so how can you say any of us have freedom of choice when we don’t have infinite possibilities … in some way or another we have our choices limited
Is having unlimited choices necessary for free will?

But the original parable addressed pain as well … not necessarily an emotion (can be but not necessarily)
Emotional pain.

God is about the spiritual, not the physical. If you understand that, you are half-way to understanding the analogies and parables in religion.

Emotional pain.

God is about the spiritual, not the physical. If you understand that, you are half-way to understanding the analogies and parables in religion.
Which is not specified … so like religion we have to think from their frame of mind in order to get it . That I can buy but I am not willing to bet there is a god who makes that ability to think from that mindset your gateway to eternal salvation

What I was trying to point out was that our freedom of choice does not hinge on the choices being possible we still have the ability to choose even if we can not act on that choice

There are a whole host of mental and physical limitations placed on individual humans … does that mean because some of our freedoms are limited that we don’t have free choice?

Would we still have free choice if sin was beyond our limitations to choose?

If so how can you say any of us have freedom of choice when we don’t have infinite possibilities … in some way or another we have our choices limited
Is having unlimited choices necessary for free will?

but then that would require God to change His will to meet ours. As Wilimena said in an earlier post sin is the opposite of God's will. God has His beliefs/rules/definition of morality. We can choose to abide by His will or we can choose to go against His will. We have the choice, we make it every day of our lives. Going against His will is sinning. You can't take sin out of the picture unless God rewrites His will to our standards. Now why doesn't He do that? Well the will of people changes all the time. Our will changes when we learn new things. God doesn't learn new things, he is all-knowing. He's already figured out everything that we havn't learned yet. That would be like the parents of a 5 year old changing their rules of behavior to meet the specifications of the child.

but then that would require God to change His will to meet ours. As Wilimena said in an earlier post sin is the opposite of God's will. God has His beliefs/rules/definition of morality. We can choose to abide by His will or we can choose to go against His will. We have the choice, we make it every day of our lives. Going against His will is sinning. You can't take sin out of the picture unless God rewrites His will to our standards. Now why doesn't He do that? Well the will of people changes all the time. Our will changes when we learn new things. God doesn't learn new things, he is all-knowing. He's already figured out everything that we havn't learned yet. That would be like the parents of a 5 year old changing their rules of behavior to meet the specifications of the child.
I am not asking him to rewrite his standards to fit ours I was asking a hypothetical that god could have choose

And if the rules of the parents seemed wrong to the child just the fact that he is a child does not make him wrong

Everyone is too hung up on the sin aspect anyway. You don't go to hell for sinning. Committing a sin, even the original sin, will NOT send you to hell. Everyone's worried about being blamed for a sin. Fuhgetaboutit. ALL sin has been forgiven. All you have to do is accept the forgiveness. That's it. All this "why am I being punished for. blah blah blah". You're not being punished yet. That's the whole point. It isn't painful to accept Christ's sacrifice. Really, it isn't. It actually feels pretty good. Ask anyone who's felt it, it often comes with tears of joy when experienced. It is such an incredible relief and joyous feeling that you have to wonder why you took so long to come to the decision.

I am not asking him to rewrite his standards to fit ours I was asking a hypothetical that god could have choose

And if the rules of the parents seemed wrong to the child just the fact that he is a child does not make him wrong

no but that child is still expected to follow the rules of the parents don't you think?

no but that child is still expected to follow the rules of the parents don't you think?
Hey if the rules are wrong by the point of view of the child you can hardly as a parent expect them to follow them a hundred percent children are going to differ from their parents some

There is a difference between punishing them to get them back on track and throwing them out for eternity

Everyone is too hung up on the sin aspect anyway. You don't go to hell for sinning. Committing a sin, even the original sin, will NOT send you to hell. Everyone's worried about being blamed for a sin. Fuhgetaboutit. ALL sin has been forgiven. All you have to do is accept the forgiveness. That's it. All this "why am I being punished for. blah blah blah". You're not being punished yet. That's the whole point. It isn't painful to accept Christ's sacrifice. Really, it isn't. It actually feels pretty good. Ask anyone who's felt it, it often comes with tears of joy when experienced. It is such an incredible relief and joyous feeling that you have to wonder why you took so long to come to the decision.
But that’s the thing I can go through the motions but it is impossible for me to believe that tripe … truly and in my heart at this time it is not possible for me to do such

:rolleyes: I went to a strict christian school for 6 years, my entire family are strict catholics, but I have found the path of science and I hope that this doesnt offend anyone, but science holds all the answers, to explore and come up with your own theorys. Logical, understandable answers not god, mystical rubish. Science is the key :) . And religion, I believe is stupid :headbang: . I do believe in some paranormal activities though, such as aliens and maybe ghosts. :eek:

:rolleyes: I went to a strict christian school for 6 years, my entire family are strict catholics, but I have found the path of science and I hope that this doesnt offend anyone, but science holds all the answers, to explore and come up with your own theorys. Logical, understandable answers not god, mystical rubish. Science is the key :) . And religion, I believe is stupid :headbang: . I do believe in some paranormal activities though, such as aliens and maybe ghosts. :eek:
Please try to reduce the smiles

I am also agnostic and atheist (to an extent) I went to catholic school for 7 years … sometimes people overcome what they were born into sometimes not

Im not sure in the end it really matters whatever makes you happy while you are here … I have confidence that if there is a god he will see me for who I am and take into account my life and my problems with organized religion

What I was trying to point out was that our freedom of choice does not hinge on the choices being possible we still have the ability to choose even if we can not act on that choice

There are a whole host of mental and physical limitations placed on individual humans … does that mean because some of our freedoms are limited that we don’t have free choice?
Ah, but the physical limitations are not an adequate analogy to suggest that "lack of sin" could not affect free will (and "free choice" is a different thing). That's the point I should have made in my last post.

I'd like to try answering this, if I could...Would we still have free choice if sin was beyond our limitations to choose?

If so how can you say any of us have freedom of choice when we don’t have infinite possibilities … in some way or another we have our choices limited
Is having unlimited choices necessary for free will?
On one hand, we are never without free will (or we would not be human). I keep defaulting to that hand, but that has a result of avoiding the question rather than answering it. Still, it is the foundation of my understanding of this... Sin is behavioural; if certain behaviours were "weeded out" of us, then we would not be who we are. We would not be human, as we know it today. Is that a bad thing? Frack, yes!!!!!!!!! That is the worst imaginable thing (it horrifies me). But... you're probably looking for a logical answer, not an emotional response.

We cannot lose the capacity for choice by losing an option. However, sin is not just an option that can be subtracted. "Lack of sin" implies not just behavioural modification, but modifying who we are, inherently, and changing the mental and physical equation entirely, from the get-go. That includes removing temptation, the ability to make mistakes, knowledge of evil, knowledge of past history ...even memory, which is the ability to gain knowledge, since if we can make mistakes, grow and learn from them, we must eventually do something contrary to "good."

I'm not good with entirely hypothetical questions that run contrary to reality.

"I don't believe in evil; just love and mistakes."

ok, cool. srry its the first time I have ever posted something. I think you have a good view.

… so like religion we have to think from their frame of mind in order to get it.
Believe it or not, I was...

;)

...I am not willing to bet there is a god who makes that ability to think from that mindset your gateway to eternal salvation
Salvation from the suffering, symbolized by Christ's pain on the cross.

Suffering is a big part of the Christian religion. It's there in all the symbolism, and a need (or desire) for salvation from that makes sense.

Let's just be glad we're not Christians. ;)

If everyone was logical there would be no war

If everyone was logical there would be no war
Well there are logical reasons for war … territory expansion, influence and monetary growth and such

I don’t think they are right but there is a basis for the decision to invade and acquire

:rolleyes: I went to a strict christian school for 6 years, my entire family are strict catholics, but I have found the path of science and I hope that this doesnt offend anyone, but science holds all the answers, to explore and come up with your own theorys. Logical, understandable answers not god, mystical rubish. Science is the key :) . And religion, I believe is rubbish. I do believe in some paranormal activities though, such as aliens and maybe ghosts. :eek:

Please try to reduce the smiles

I am also agnostic and atheist (to an extent) I went to catholic school for 7 years … sometimes people overcome what they were born into sometimes not

Im not sure in the end it really matters whatever makes you happy while you are here … I have confidence that if there is a god he will see me for who I am and take into account my life and my problems with organized religion


See I don't believe organized religion is necessary. I go to church when I feel the urge. I stay home when I feel the urge. I was raised catholic, I hated going to church as a kid. Because of the strict rules in catholacism, when I got out on my own I stopped going altogether. I also stopped believing. It wasn't until I was in Desert Storm that I felt a genuine need for God. I felt His presence when I needed it. It wasn't until my daughter was born that I truly felt Him overwhelmingly. That is when I began to seek answers. That is when I sought Him, truly from my heart. When I began to search, I began to find. Just like the saying goes. He has made Himself known to me on many occassions since so that I no longer question it. I'm convinced because I have experienced Him personally. Its no longer a matter of thought, or opinion to me, He is real and He was there for me when I needed Him and then even when I didn't. I no longer attend a Catholic church. I usually go to either a bible church or a baptist church because I find them similar enough to my beliefs. I have MY relationship with my God and sometimes I go to church in order to be with others in that relationship as well. Organized religion is just a catch phrase these days. Its nothing more than a cliche used by non-believers.

A computer programmer creates a program that simulates existence by starting from a big bang and allowing evolution to occur along a set of pre-defined physical laws. Civilisation arises. The Creator believes that killing crickets is immoral. Civilization decides to override the creator and make it justified. Why should the created have the power to override the creator in that digital world?

The point of both examples is the same, right?
Anyway, aparently the creator of such a program thinks it would be wrong to change the code, so the creation complies with the creator's whishes. At least, that's the Christian take on it, right?
But without intimate knowledge of the creator, how will the created know what intentions the creator has? Incidentially, how can they possibly know whether they're capable of doing anything unintended?

I responded to a statement which said that the books sugested at the begining were unscientific. My point was however that they are not about science, they are about theology, philosophy and history. Thus the claim that they are unscientific is wrong.

My apologies. It must be a misunderstanding on my part. Still, the claim isn't wrong. It's just silly. Like stating darkness is dark.

not true.

I/we have been asked not to discuss it here. Still, I can't help saying: Right back at you :p

but then that would require God to change His will to meet ours. As Wilimena said in an earlier post sin is the opposite of God's will. God has His beliefs/rules/definition of morality. We can choose to abide by His will or we can choose to go against His will. We have the choice, we make it every day of our lives. Going against His will is sinning. You can't take sin out of the picture unless God rewrites His will to our standards. Now why doesn't He do that? Well the will of people changes all the time. Our will changes when we learn new things. God doesn't learn new things, he is all-knowing. He's already figured out everything that we havn't learned yet. That would be like the parents of a 5 year old changing their rules of behavior to meet the specifications of the child.

If the concept of free will is unrelated to the choices we face, but is simply the ability to make a choice, I have a pretty obvious question.

How would it impose on our free will if we were created to unconditionally love God? It doesn't take free will away any more than me not being created with gills does. It only limits the choices we can make, right?
I suppose the same could be said about sinning. Not all choices and judgment calls result in either a sin or no sin. Plenty are just choices with no great or lasting moral/ethical consequences. So why make us capable of sinning at all?

Everyone is too hung up on the sin aspect anyway. You don't go to hell for sinning. Committing a sin, even the original sin, will NOT send you to hell. Everyone's worried about being blamed for a sin. Fuhgetaboutit. ALL sin has been forgiven. All you have to do is accept the forgiveness. That's it. All this "why am I being punished for. blah blah blah". You're not being punished yet. That's the whole point. It isn't painful to accept Christ's sacrifice. Really, it isn't. It actually feels pretty good. Ask anyone who's felt it, it often comes with tears of joy when experienced. It is such an incredible relief and joyous feeling that you have to wonder why you took so long to come to the decision.

Hehe, sorry mate. Just trying to understand the concept. However, supposing I don't see any reason to accept Jesus, and supposing that I continously commit a sin (or a bunch) that I don't myself see anything wrong with, does that earn me damnation?
Say I'm an atheist and I often steal food out of dumpsters because I'm poor. In that situation, there's not much chance I'll ever accept Jesus as anything but a fairytale, and even if I did, it's unlikely I'd ever consider stealing food from a dumpster a sin.
Would I be damned? And would you think my conduct was amoral or sinful?

Also, it's been claimed (can't remember by whom) that god is the source of morality. But in the scenario above, I'd find god highly amoral if he damned me. Yet I'm pretty sure he would, as stealing is a sin and only believers are saved (in my understanding anyway).
Would you agree or disagree that god in this case has the moral high ground?

Well there are logical reasons for war … territory expansion, influence and monetary growth and such

I don’t think they are right but there is a basis for the decision to invade and acquire

There would be no ability to expand if the all countries were one, united power. Because of religion, we can not unite

Let's just be glad we're not Christians. ;)
I am :)

There would be no ability to expand if the all countries were one, united power. Because of religion, we can not unite
They would argue that its not because we have not accepted the “true” religion

Whichever that may be

Would we still have free choice if sin was beyond our limitations to choose?


No, because as others have pointed out, sin is the opposite to Gods will. For sin to be beyond our limitations to choose would mean that we are forced to do Gods will all the time. God did not want mindless automatons, he did not want people who did his will all the time simpley because they were forced.

See I don't believe organized religion is necessary. I go to church when I feel the urge. I stay home when I feel the urge. I was raised catholic, I hated going to church as a kid. Because of the strict rules in catholacism, when I got out on my own I stopped going altogether. I also stopped believing. It wasn't until I was in Desert Storm that I felt a genuine need for God. I felt His presence when I needed it. It wasn't until my daughter was born that I truly felt Him overwhelmingly. That is when I began to seek answers. That is when I sought Him, truly from my heart. When I began to search, I began to find. Just like the saying goes. He has made Himself known to me on many occassions since so that I no longer question it. I'm convinced because I have experienced Him personally. Its no longer a matter of thought, or opinion to me, He is real and He was there for me when I needed Him and then even when I didn't. I no longer attend a Catholic church. I usually go to either a bible church or a baptist church because I find them similar enough to my beliefs. I have MY relationship with my God and sometimes I go to church in order to be with others in that relationship as well. Organized religion is just a catch phrase these days. Its nothing more than a cliche used by non-believers.
No my problem is with the organization itself sorry not just a cliché

With my past I have reason to distrust anyone that trys to tell me what god says I should do and threatens me if I don’t toe the line

Having an organization just compounds the issue for me

See I don't believe organized religion is necessary. I go to church when I feel the urge. I stay home when I feel the urge. I was raised catholic, I hated going to church as a kid. Because of the strict rules in catholacism, when I got out on my own I stopped going altogether. I also stopped believing. It wasn't until I was in Desert Storm that I felt a genuine need for God. I felt His presence when I needed it. It wasn't until my daughter was born that I truly felt Him overwhelmingly. That is when I began to seek answers. That is when I sought Him, truly from my heart. When I began to search, I began to find. Just like the saying goes. He has made Himself known to me on many occassions since so that I no longer question it. I'm convinced because I have experienced Him personally. Its no longer a matter of thought, or opinion to me, He is real and He was there for me when I needed Him and then even when I didn't. I no longer attend a Catholic church. I usually go to either a bible church or a baptist church because I find them similar enough to my beliefs. I have MY relationship with my God and sometimes I go to church in order to be with others in that relationship as well. Organized religion is just a catch phrase these days. Its nothing more than a cliche used by non-believers.
This is marvelous. The symbolism you use is love (especially for the child), presence (comforting and supportive), and courage (heart). These spiritual things have to do with god (or God), indepedent of Christ, the symbol of suffering, or Christianity, or any religion. This is a good thing, in my opinion.

I have very similar symbols in my concept of god.

No, because as others have pointed out, sin is the opposite to Gods will. For sin to be beyond our limitations to choose would mean that we are forced to do Gods will all the time. God did not want mindless automatons, he did not want people who did his will all the time simpley because they were forced.
*jots that one down*

That's the rationale I couldn't think of.

No, because as others have pointed out, sin is the opposite to Gods will. For sin to be beyond our limitations to choose would mean that we are forced to do Gods will all the time. God did not want mindless automatons, he did not want people who did his will all the time simpley because they were forced.
And yet he punishes those who not do his bidding
Automatons no, slaves … maybe

If the concept of free will is unrelated to the choices we face, but is simply the ability to make a choice, I have a pretty obvious question.

How would it impose on our free will if we were created to unconditionally love God? It doesn't take free will away any more than me not being created with gills does. It only limits the choices we can make, right?

We have already established that the gills agruement is flawed on the grounds that sin is not a physical state.


I suppose the same could be said about sinning. Not all choices and judgment calls result in either a sin or no sin. Plenty are just choices with no great or lasting moral/ethical consequences. So why make us capable of sinning at all?


Because, to not sin is to do the will of God. Sin is everything that is opposite to God's will. Now if we were made so that we couldnt sin, then we would just be doing what God wanted all the time just because God programed us to. Thats not what he wanted. He didnt want mindless automatons, he wanted free thinking people. Those free thinking people would have the choice wheter to love him or not. You cant force someone to love you because thats not what love is.


Hehe, sorry mate. Just trying to understand the concept. However, supposing I don't see any reason to accept Jesus, and supposing that I continously commit a sin (or a bunch) that I don't myself see anything wrong with, does that earn me damnation?

Yes, because its not your opinion that counts, its Gods.


Say I'm an atheist and I often steal food out of dumpsters because I'm poor. In that situation, there's not much chance I'll ever accept Jesus as anything but a fairytale, and even if I did, it's unlikely I'd ever consider stealing food from a dumpster a sin.
Would I be damned? And would you think my conduct was amoral or sinful?

Firstly, I doubt that taking food out of a dumpster would be considered stealing by anyone since no one owns it. If however you stole from a supermarket or some other shop where the food is clearly someone elses then yes it would. If you were a Christian and homeless (and I know of one or two) then you would be praying for the food suply and God would at some point provide, in the form of a charity or a stranger just giving you some food or something.

The idea of one all powerful, all knowing being who is so powerful that you cant even begin to imagine. It made the sun, land and all that rubbish in just a week withought getting tired. It completly ignored the rules of evolution and nature then created a load of people in a wink of a eye. COME ON ITS A STUPID FAIRYTALE. GOD DOES NOT EXIST. SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER.

The idea of one all powerful, all knowing being who is so powerful that you cant even begin to imagine. It made the sun, land and all that rubbish in just a week withought getting tired. It completly ignored the rules of evolution and nature then created a load of people in a wink of a eye. COME ON ITS A STUPID FAIRYTALE. GOD DOES NOT EXIST. SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER.
Science is not an answer it is a process

The point of both examples is the same, right?
Anyway, aparently the creator of such a program thinks it would be wrong to change the code, so the creation complies with the creator's whishes. At least, that's the Christian take on it, right?
But without intimate knowledge of the creator, how will the created know what intentions the creator has? Incidentially, how can they possibly know whether they're capable of doing anything unintended??

But man had intimate knowledge of the creator. He had intimate knowledge of our savior too. The knowledge was then passed down for us all to read. There are so many teachers out there that we can't really say "um.. well I didn't know" just because we havn't taken the time to truly check it out thoroughly.







If the concept of free will is unrelated to the choices we face, but is simply the ability to make a choice, I have a pretty obvious question.

How would it impose on our free will if we were created to unconditionally love God? It doesn't take free will away any more than me not being created with gills does. It only limits the choices we can make, right?
I suppose the same could be said about sinning. Not all choices and judgment calls result in either a sin or no sin. Plenty are just choices with no great or lasting moral/ethical consequences. So why make us capable of sinning at all?

The same can't be said about sinning. There are two sides of the coin. Not 3 or 4. We can follow His will, or we can reject His will. Rejecting it is sin. If He forced us to follow His will, it wouldn't be a free choice. If you met a girl you thought was hot, and you forced her to love you, after the initial3-4 year romp of not caring because you're getting hot sex, don't you think after a while you'd wonder if she would have loved you on her own? do you think it would matter to you? If she didn't love you on her own, is it real love? Did she have the choice?



Hehe, sorry mate. Just trying to understand the concept. However, supposing I don't see any reason to accept Jesus, and supposing that I continously commit a sin (or a bunch) that I don't myself see anything wrong with, does that earn me damnation?
Say I'm an atheist and I often steal food out of dumpsters because I'm poor. In that situation, there's not much chance I'll ever accept Jesus as anything but a fairytale, and even if I did, it's unlikely I'd ever consider stealing food from a dumpster a sin.
Would I be damned? And would you think my conduct was amoral or sinful?

Also, it's been claimed (can't remember by whom) that god is the source of morality. But in the scenario above, I'd find god highly amoral if he damned me. Yet I'm pretty sure he would, as stealing is a sin and only believers are saved (in my understanding anyway).
Would you agree or disagree that god in this case has the moral high ground?

you're still missing the sin point. You will not be damned for sinning. you will be damned for rejecting Christ. If you're stealing food out of a dumpster, for one I don't believe that's stealing, to survive, you're not sinning, you're surviving. He would not damn you for this any more than he would damn you for stealing from a McDonalds. Its the atheist part of your scenario you'd have to worry about, not the stealing from a dumpster. Rejecting God is what will serve you eternity away from Him. Not your petty sins, they can be forgiven.

And yet he punishes those who not do his bidding
Automatons no, slaves … maybe

No, he punishes those who do not accept salvation. The punisment is based not on wheter or not you have sinned or by however much you have sinned, its based on your reaction to that sin. If you deal with it via asking for forgiveness which is offered via Jesus's death then you are saved. If you dont, your not. Its that simple.

Science is not an answer it is a process
Im not sure I understand you

No, he punishes those who do not accept salvation. The punisment is based not on wheter or not you have sinned or by however much you have sinned, its based on your reaction to that sin. If you deal with it via asking for forgiveness which is offered via Jesus's death then you are saved. If you dont, your not. Its that simple.
Simple explanation not so simple to carry out

For me its like saying all backs are slaves unless they choose to be white

No matter how hard I have tried in my core I can but cover up the outside

In my core I do not believe

God will understand that

Im not sure I understand you
http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm

That is science … it is a way to organize and draw conclusion from facts

It is not in of itself an answer to anything

:rolleyes: I went to a strict christian school for 6 years, my entire family are strict catholics, but I have found the path of science and I hope that this doesnt offend anyone, but science holds all the answers, to explore and come up with your own theorys. Logical, understandable answers not god, mystical rubish. Science is the key :) . And religion, I believe is rubbish. I do believe in some paranormal activities though, such as aliens and maybe ghosts. :eek:

Science can explain how the universe works, but it can never answer metaphysical questions such as "why are we here?". Science is not the wonderful be-all and end-all that you think it is.

ok, I dont want to get to involved into this converstaion. I think I understand you, but I dont think I will ever become religouse. I must leave now.

ok, I dont want to get to involved into this converstaion. I think I understand you, but I dont think I will ever become religouse. I must leave now.
That’s fine I am not myself just pointing out that it is a process … not an answer

We are not discussing Creation or Evolution here. We are discussing philosophy and theology. Science does not come into it.

First, s/he was wrong to say the two don't mix. They have and do. More importantly they both should contain at least a modicum of logic. You can expect that if you present a theory on absolute reality that this theory will be held up to the light of logic and our current knowledge and for the most part scientific method (with the exception of the falsifiable part).

Also, when you keep mentioning sciences or your sources do then expect that they are going to be even more heavily scrutinized.

The idea of one all powerful, all knowing being who is so powerful that you cant even begin to imagine. It made the sun, land and all that rubbish in just a week withought getting tired. It completly ignored the rules of evolution and nature then created a load of people in a wink of a eye. COME ON ITS A STUPID FAIRYTALE. GOD DOES NOT EXIST. SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER.
Nevertheless, it is the topic we're discussing. :)

And yet he punishes those who not do his bidding
Automatons no, slaves … maybe

maybe you were taught that in catholic church, I disagree with it. We are not punished for our sins. We've been given an out, we just have to take it.

I heard a story once of a guy who's hometown was utterly flooded. He climbed up on his roof and began to pray as the water kept rising. He told himself he had faith in God and that God would save him. A boy floated by in a canoe and asked if he needed help. The man said No, my God will rescue me. The water kept rising. Soon a man in a row boat floated by and asked if he wanted a lift. The man said No, my God will come for me. As the water got up to his chin, a motorboat trolled by and the driver asked if he wanted help. The man still said No, I have faith in my God. Well, he drowned. When he got to heaven he was pissed and starting railing at God for letting his faith be wasted and not saving him. God said " I sent you three boats, what did you want?"

Reptiles don't talk. It had to be Satan.

You're kidding me, right?

First - The Serpent isn't the only animal in the Bible that talks, now is it?

Second - It had legs, and now doesn't have any. Is Satan legless?

Third - Satan obviously isn't legless, because he is walking up and down the Earth just before he goes to hang out at God's house, in Job.

Fourth - Despite the attempt by New Testament writers to make the two the same, Satan was never the adversary of God... only of Man. Which is why 'God' sends him to test Job.

Fifth - 'Satan' isn't even the name of the angel, until later attempts fudge the results. He was called 'HaSatan' in the Hebrew... 'The Satan'. It isn't 'who he is', it's 'what he does'.

There would be no ability to expand if the all countries were one, united power. Because of religion, we can not unite

The basis for expansionism is the innate drive to divert all resources to me and mine, and to displace all others. To many humans, this need is as fundamental as eating and breathing.

People naturally contrive 'me and mine' exactly as needed to rationalize thier innately acquisitive behavior. Religion as the excuse is a fiction made convenient by the infinite divisibility of disagreement over beliefs.

Even if it was universally agreed that the Omnivorous Olivant eats mature souls at death and poops out new souls for birth, wars would be lively because people want things that others have in this world.

Second - It had legs, and now doesn't have any. Is Satan legless?

Third - Satan obviously isn't legless, because he is walking up and down the Earth just before he goes to hang out at God's house, in Job.


Legless pirates is satan?

Just merging similar meanings into the analogy.

There is nothing similar about the stories UNLESS you try to imply that the two stories feature the same Adversary.

You are just confusing the issue... and without a valid defence, I fear.

Free will is not the number of options available to you, nor is it your ability to choose from the options. It's about what you can choose about.
EDIT: That's a typo, it should read "It's not about what you can choose about."

Will is the activity of a consciousness; a conscious mind asserting itself. If it does this "freely," with an action it itself determines, then that is will freely exercised (as opposed to a destiny determined by god or fate, or coercion by another).

If we are coerced by another into doing something that is "against our will," then we are not wholly responsible for that action, because we resisted in some way. If, on the other hand, our course is determined by god or fate, then we have no will whatsoever, for these things are "forces" beyond our control. If god decides any part of our destiny for us, we are automatons.

Ach! I can't let this one go. "Free will" can't require a complete lack of interference or it doesn't exist. One or the other. Because by your definitions the fact that we are genetically predisposed to certain actions, certain diseases, certain physical traits means we don't have "free will". We are coerced to become alcoholics by genetics and then by disease itself. We are coerced to become angry because we may have a genetic predisposition to getting hot under the collar or we were subjected to some things as children. Your claims really allows us to lift all responsibilities from ourselves because you track every decision you make as being under the influence of some other event in your life.

maybe you were taught that in catholic church, I disagree with it. We are not punished for our sins. We've been given an out, we just have to take it.

I heard a story once of a guy who's hometown was utterly flooded. He climbed up on his roof and began to pray as the water kept rising. He told himself he had faith in God and that God would save him. A boy floated by in a canoe and asked if he needed help. The man said No, my God will rescue me. The water kept rising. Soon a man in a row boat floated by and asked if he wanted a lift. The man said No, my God will come for me. As the water got up to his chin, a motorboat trolled by and the driver asked if he wanted help. The man still said No, I have faith in my God. Well, he drowned. When he got to heaven he was pissed and starting railing at God for letting his faith be wasted and not saving him. God said " I sent you three boats, what did you want?"
Yeah I posted that one in a joke forum for awhile too

He just hasn’t sent me a boat that I have the ability to get in yet I can not force belief … actions yes true in my heart belief no

Simple explanation not so simple to carry out

For me its like saying all backs are slaves unless they choose to be white

No matter how hard I have tried in my core I can but cover up the outside

In my core I do not believe

God will understand that

All you have to believe is these simple things

- That you have sinned/done wrong/rebeled against God
- That he loves you despite that
- That he can forgive your sins via Jesus's death

And as a result of believeing you have sinned, trying now to lead a life as close to the one that Jesus described as you can

Science is not an answer it is a process refers to the scientific method and the fact that science is dynamic. It finds answers, but it is not an answer in itself.

And anyone with an ounce of knowlegde of human nature and psychology knows why we have religion. It's a cop-out. It's a coping mechanism. It's a way to affirm power, to remove responsibility, and deny one's death. It's anything but real.

And that's why I'm an atheist.

All you have to believe is these simple things

- That you have sinned/done wrong/rebeled against God
- That he loves you despite that
- That he can forgive your sins via Jesus's death

And as a result of believeing you have sinned, trying now to lead a life as close to the one that Jesus described as you can
And to ask that truly and from my heart I have to believe in him
I don’t

Despite your trying to make it so belief in the end is not a conscious decision … you can decide your actions but in that very kernel of my being I do not feel god

I either have it or I don’t … and right now I don’t … that may change but right now I just cant believe you make it sound like a conscious choice when that is not necessarily true

Simple explanation not so simple to carry out

For me its like saying all backs are slaves unless they choose to be white

No matter how hard I have tried in my core I can but cover up the outside

In my core I do not believe

God will understand that

what you seem to be saying is you can write your own version of the rules and God will accept them. You do not believe in your core because you do not want to. If you sinned, and you asked for forgiveness, you'd feel it. Once you've felt it, it becomes easy to believe.

Legless pirates is satan?

Now THAT would make more sense... ;)

Science is not an answer it is a process refers to the scientific method and the fact that science is dynamic. It finds answers, but it is not an answer in itself.

And anyone with an ounce of knowlegde of human nature and psychology knows why we have religion. It's a cop-out. It's a coping mechanism. It's a way to affirm power, to remove responsibility, and deny one's death. It's anything but real.

And that's why I'm an atheist.
I said that three times lol even posted the diagram lol

I am culturally Jewish, however, in the last few years i have become Agnostic for personal reasons. I do not believe that there is a god or that there is anything supernatural on earth..what we see is what we have.

I said that three times lol even posted the diagram lol

Hahaha, yeah, I didn't feel like reading the 78 pages of thread.

Good man, good man! (or woman! ;) )

what you seem to be saying is you can write your own version of the rules and God will accept them. You do not believe in your core because you do not want to. If you sinned, and you asked for forgiveness, you'd feel it. Once you've felt it, it becomes easy to believe.
No I do not accept them in my core because they do not fit me … I cant force that I got to feel it

You have had the pleasure to feel it I respect that

But I have not

You are asking me to believe something in my core that I do not FEEL when you have had the benefit of that feel to make your decision

But for some reason you expect me to make the same out of things without having that advantage

Hahaha, yeah, I didn't feel like reading the 78 pages of thread.

Good man, good man! (or woman! ;) )
Man :) it was just like a page ago cause someone said science was the answer lol

what you seem to be saying is you can write your own version of the rules and God will accept them. You do not believe in your core because you do not want to. If you sinned, and you asked for forgiveness, you'd feel it. Once you've felt it, it becomes easy to believe.

Or maybe, UpwardThrust just doesn't believe that an omnipotent power is as restricted and rules-constrained as ONE SET OF STORIES would lead us to believe?

Yeah I posted that one in a joke forum for awhile too

He just hasn’t sent me a boat that I have the ability to get in yet I can not force belief … actions yes true in my heart belief no

I can understand that. I went many years wanting to believe without having the ability. Of course I told myself I wanted it, but I didn't really make any effort...like read, listen, go to church, ask.. those pesky things. when I felt the NEED, I searched and it happened for me. Maybe you aren't ready yet. The timing, of course, is entirely up to you. I will pray for you however that it comes sooner than later...that is if you don't mind.

The idea of one all powerful, all knowing being who is so powerful that you cant even begin to imagine. It made the sun, land and all that rubbish in just a week withought getting tired. It completly ignored the rules of evolution and nature then created a load of people in a wink of a eye. COME ON ITS A STUPID FAIRYTALE. GOD DOES NOT EXIST. SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER.

Science cannot answer all the worlds questions. Evolution is one way of understanding the current evidence, but it is not the only way. What you are spouting is an idea called "sciencism" where the idea is that science is metaphysical and supreme. It isnt. Science is just explaining how the world works, it cannot explain beyond that. Whether or not God exisits is not within the powers of science to explain.

And anyone with an ounce of knowlegde of human nature and psychology knows why we have religion. It's a cop-out. It's a coping mechanism. It's a way to affirm power, to remove responsibility, and deny one's death. It's anything but real.

And that's why I'm an atheist.

funny, that's exactly what I think of atheism

I can understand that. I went many years wanting to believe without having the ability. Of course I told myself I wanted it, but I didn't really make any effort...like read, listen, go to church, ask.. those pesky things. when I felt the NEED, I searched and it happened for me. Maybe you aren't ready yet. The timing, of course, is entirely up to you. I will pray for you however that it comes sooner than later...that is if you don't mind.
Ive tried but so far the Christian god does not “feel” right to me … in the end all the argument does not … I am not saying that wont change but there are a lot of faiths out there hell maybe one of them will feel right to me in the end and I will come to some sort of conclusion that way

I don’t know

I have had a hard past with the Christian and catholic faith god is going to have to try hard to get me to feel that way if he wants to send me a boat I can get in … he might do that, but he has not yet

I responded to a statement which said that the books sugested at the begining were unscientific. My point was however that they are not about science, they are about theology, philosophy and history. Thus the claim that they are unscientific is wrong.

So you are claiming that archeology is not a science? Huh, I guess all those archeologists would be intrigued to note such things. I think historians would interested to find out that they have not requirements to be scientifically accurate. History is heavily tied into archeology and both groups would definitely refute your claim that they have nothing to do with science.

Secondly, in "The Case for Faith" it is specifically suggested the we include supernatural explanations into a scientific consideration of an event, for the purpose of accepting that miracles occur. The problem, of course, that a supernatural explanation can never be disproven. For example, Satan kills a man and frames the Pope. Satan places the Pope's fingerprints on the gun and whatever else is needed to prove the case. Certainly, Satan would be capable of framing a lowly man, so there's no reason for us to believe that we could ever disprove this option. Let's just let every criminal go free if supernatural explanations are acceptable.

Lee Strobel claims to be an investigative reporter who is taking on the role of a tough-minded skeptic but he avoids asking all of the obvious follow-up questions. That's not just unscientific, it's not thorough and it's not logical. It's a sad excuse for support of the Christian faith and, as a Christian, I consider it rather embarassing that anyone would attempt to argue that it's even remotely doing justice to the arguments.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Free will is not the number of options available to you, nor is it your ability to choose from the options. It's about what you can choose about.
EDIT: That's a typo, it should read "It's not about what you can choose about."

Will is the activity of a consciousness; a conscious mind asserting itself. If it does this "freely," with an action it itself determines, then that is will freely exercised (as opposed to a destiny determined by god or fate, or coercion by another).

If we are coerced by another into doing something that is "against our will," then we are not wholly responsible for that action, because we resisted in some way. If, on the other hand, our course is determined by god or fate, then we have no will whatsoever, for these things are "forces" beyond our control. If god decides any part of our destiny for us, we are automatons.
Ach! I can't let this one go. "Free will" can't require a complete lack of interference or it doesn't exist. One or the other. Because by your definitions the fact that we are genetically predisposed to certain actions, certain diseases, certain physical traits means we don't have "free will". We are coerced to become alcoholics by genetics and then by disease itself. We are coerced to become angry because we may have a genetic predisposition to getting hot under the collar or we were subjected to some things as children. Your claims really allows us to lift all responsibilities from ourselves because you track every decision you make as being under the influence of some other event in your life.
One or the other what? Free will exists, and god does not interfere. I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

"The fact that we are genetically predisposed to certain actions [like what?], diseases, certain physical traits" has nothing to do with free will at all. Free will is about the consciousness, about being, about self-determination.

Coercion happens via another's will, not by physical conditions. It is subjection to another's will.

Anger is not determined by "genetic predisposition" except in a deterministic version of reality. A physical response of anger is not the same as the emotional trigger, which is something we can control.

Determinism is the claim that allows us to lift responsibility for ourselves off our shoulders. I do not buy into determinism.

funny, that's exactly what I think of atheism
Amazing humans using similar things to cope in similar ways … funny that

Or maybe, UpwardThrust just doesn't believe that an omnipotent power is as restricted and rules-constrained as ONE SET OF STORIES would lead us to believe?

Grave, have you ever considered that if something is omnipotent and omnisicent then there are some things that by definition it cannot do. For example, it cannot make mistakes, it cannot make itself cease to exist. This is not because it lacks the power to, but because it is part of the definition of those words. Perhaps you would tell me though in what other fashions you would consider God rule restrained.

Or maybe, UpwardThrust just doesn't believe that an omnipotent power is as restricted and rules-constrained as ONE SET OF STORIES would lead us to believe?
Absolutely I have a feeling that if he exists he wont have limited himself the way Christianity seems to

All you have to believe is these simple things

- That you have sinned/done wrong/rebeled against God
- That he loves you despite that
- That he can forgive your sins via Jesus's death

And as a result of believeing you have sinned, trying now to lead a life as close to the one that Jesus described as you can
There is *nothing* simple about those things, for they come with a whole mythology supporting them (and even a few mythologies of other religions).

Grave, have you ever considered that if something is omnipotent and omnisicent then there are some things that by definition it cannot do. For example, it cannot make mistakes, it cannot make itself cease to exist. This is not because it lacks the power to, but because it is part of the definition of those words. Perhaps you would tell me though in what other fashions you would consider God rule restrained.
Great you pointed out some of the logical fallacies of the supposed “omnipotent” deity for us thank you


Some of the exact reasons Christianity’s description of god just does not “feel” right

And anyone with an ounce of knowlegde of human nature and psychology knows why we have religion. It's a cop-out. It's a coping mechanism. It's a way to affirm power, to remove responsibility, and deny one's death. It's anything but real.
Isn't that answer sort of a cop-out?

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.

Take it as a compliment... you are certainly one of the more stimulating debates I've had recently. :)

I'm afraid I just have to respond to what gets posted: which I divide into two camps...

1) There is some stuff which is seriously WORTH debate... it's a learning process for me, and it makes me examine what I know...

2) There is some stuff I have to reply to, not for me... but to make sure comment is offered against certain points... like Dragon's Bay asserting that the Serpent was Satan... it is my 'duty' to point out that there are very much other opinions on this matter.

Debate with you has proved to be Debate Type 1, thus far... but there has had to be some Debate Type 2 in this thread, also.

Lee Strobel claims to be an investigative reporter who is taking on the role of a tough-minded skeptic but he avoids asking all of the obvious follow-up questions. That's not just unscientific, it's not thorough and it's not logical. It's a sad excuse for support of the Christian faith and, as a Christian, I consider it rather embarassing that anyone would attempt to argue that it's even remotely doing justice to the arguments.

Lee Strobel's works are not just linked to history, but also philosophy and theology. Specificly, "the case for faith" has nothing to do with History. It is about the objections to Chrisitanity on a philosophical level (eg, how can suffering exist when there is an omnibenevolent God).

There is *nothing* simple about those things, for they come with a whole mythology supporting them (and even a few mythologies of other religions).
Exactly … they may be short to describe but they are not simple to carry out (if possible) not only do you have to force belief (which you have to have belief enough to find reason to do this supposed forcing (if it is possible)) but you have to believe that this is what a deity wants from you

With a bunch of other religions arguing with you at points

In the end belief is the cornerstone … and it is probably the key piece I am missing and without it some of those are pushed beyond my ability

(I probably did a horrible job on this one dont roast me over it)

Great you pointed out some of the logical fallacies of the supposed “omnipotent” deity for us thank you

They are not logical falacicies. They do not prove that an omnipotent being cannot exist. What they prove is that the English language cannot properly describe it. For example, does being omnipotent mean that you can create a four sided triangle. Of course not! But surely an omnipotent person can do anything? Yes, but the English language says that triangle means a shape with three sides, so you cant have a four sided triangle without breaking the laws of the English language. Now that isnt because the omnipotent person is somehow weak or feable enough so as not to be able to do that. Thats because of the definitions provided by the English language, nothing else.


Some of the exact reasons Christianity’s description of god just does not “feel” right

That sentance doesnt make sense. Can you elaborate on what you intended to mean.

So you are claiming that archeology is not a science? Huh, I guess all those archeologists would be intrigued to note such things. I think historians would interested to find out that they have not requirements to be scientifically accurate. History is heavily tied into archeology and both groups would definitely refute your claim that they have nothing to do with science.

Lee Strobel claims to be an investigative reporter who is taking on the role of a tough-minded skeptic but he avoids asking all of the obvious follow-up questions. That's not just unscientific, it's not thorough and it's not logical. It's a sad excuse for support of the Christian faith and, as a Christian, I consider it rather embarassing that anyone would attempt to argue that it's even remotely doing justice to the arguments.

Well if you were expecting Strobel to deliver indiffutable proof of his subjects, that is, obviously, not possible. I think Strobel did a great job of bringing in expert opinions to openly discuss the major arguements against a creator and a savior. Sure, someone else might have done a better job. Thing is, someone else didn't. I found Strobel very helpful in my decisions in coming to faith. Yes, I had doubts about some of his conclusions. I felt some didn't delve far enough. But in general, I felt really good about my faith after reading what he had to say. I feel his books are more than sufficient to get people to honestly question the arguments of Christianity and Creation vs. Evolution. After reading his books, one can then use the EXTENSIVE bibliography and start reading from the experts own books where the conclusions not met might be found. I think you are way to critical of a good man who wrote some good books with good information that might have good outcomes for more people who are searching for their own faith.

I have found the path of science and I hope that this doesnt offend anyone, but science holds all the answers, to explore and come up with your own theorys. Logical, understandable answers not god, mystical rubish. Science is the key. And religion, I believe is rubbish.
All answers do not lie in one source. Looking to science for answers for everything is like looking in an encyclopaedia book for the answer to a math equation, no single source can hold the answer to every question. For instance, "Why are we here?" is a question that cannot be answered by science, science can only say how we are here, but the why will always elude science. Knowledge is a combination of many sources, and there are more things to the universe than man alone. When Galileo proposed that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, many "scientific experts" did not believe in him, they still thought you could turn lead into gold with mercury. They thought HE was a mystical fool, but they were proven wrong.

They are not logical falacicies. They do not prove that an omnipotent being cannot exist. What they prove is that the English language cannot properly describe it. For example, does being omnipotent mean that you can create a four sided triangle. Of course not! But surely an omnipotent person can do anything? Yes, but the English language says that triangle means a shape with three sides, so you cant have a four sided triangle without breaking the laws of the English language. Now that isnt because the omnipotent person is somehow weak or feable enough so as not to be able to do that. Thats because of the definitions provided by the English language, nothing else.



That sentance doesnt make sense. Can you elaborate on what you intended to mean.
The describe him as an omnipotent deity when in of itself there are logical issues with a such a deity

It does not mean he can not exist it just casts doubt on their ability to accurately describe him or her

funny, that's exactly what I think of atheism

I have to ask... being an Atheist usually means having to come to terms with the fact that there is nothing 'out there'... and that often means you have to come to rely on yourself, and that you have to accept OTHER things MIGHT not be out there, like life-after-death...

How is that a 'Coping Mechanism'?

How does NOT being able to appeal to a deity 'remove responsibility'?

How does coming to terms with the fact that everything is finite, 'deny one's death'?

Your parrallel doesn't work, it appears... can you explain?

They are not logical falacicies. They do not prove that an omnipotent being cannot exist. What they prove is that the English language cannot properly describe it. For example, does being omnipotent mean that you can create a four sided triangle. Of course not! But surely an omnipotent person can do anything? Yes, but the English language says that triangle means a shape with three sides, so you cant have a four sided triangle without breaking the laws of the English language. Now that isnt because the omnipotent person is somehow weak or feable enough so as not to be able to do that. Thats because of the definitions provided by the English language, nothing else.
The significant point is that God is described in those English words, with those English meanings, in that way. If that is not what's really meant, then the fault lies in the authors, not in the language.

The describe him as an omnipotent deity when in of itself there are logical issues with a such a deity

It does not mean he can not exist it just casts doubt on their ability to accurately describe him or her

Ok so how would you have them describe God? "All poweful except for the obvious contridictions of being all powerful". He is all powerful. Now granted there are some logical contridictions in that idea but if you can think of a better way to describe him I am listening

For instance, "Why are we here?" is a question that cannot be answered by science, science can only say how we are here, but the why will always elude science.

actually, so will the how ;)

Ok so how would you have them describe God? "All poweful except for the obvious contridictions of being all powerful". He is all powerful. Now granted there are some logical contridictions in that idea but if you can think of a better way to describe him I am listening
That’s fine but with the lack of evidence I otherwise have in this world showing me a deity that off the bat does not feel right and has some logical issues (at least in the description) is not the way to convince me

God created me to be a sex machine :D … think the terminator but sexier :p

Yes sir... ;) :fluffle:

I have to ask... being an Atheist usually means having to come to terms with the fact that there is nothing 'out there'... and that often means you have to come to rely on yourself, and that you have to accept OTHER things MIGHT not be out there, like life-after-death...

How is that a 'Coping Mechanism'?

How does NOT being able to appeal to a deity 'remove responsibility'?

How does coming to terms with the fact that everything is finite, 'deny one's death'?

Your parrallel doesn't work, it appears... can you explain?

ah the irony in that is, neither did his.

Yes sir... ;) :fluffle:
Lol sir you might be the first one to respond to that horrible joke

*gets on his Arnold voice*
I am the sexanator
You have been targeted for sexing

That’s fine but with the lack of evidence I otherwise have in this world showing me a deity that off the bat does not feel right and has some logical issues (at least in the description) is not the way to convince me
Why don't you show us some "logical issues". Logic is an insignificant tool used by humans as a last resort to describe something. Logic cannot be used to judge everything in the universe, some things don't have to make sense. Try to describe the mind of a mad man with "logic", it is impossible. Logic can only produce a thin grasp of the Universe, there are many things beyond perception of the "logical" human mind.

The significant point is that God is described in those English words, with those English meanings, in that way. If that is not what's really meant, then the fault lies in the authors, not in the language.
More significantly, there *is* a language specifically designed to express such ideas, utilizing and at the same time circumventing our human languages, but it is commonly ignored, derided and dismissed because people do not want to hear that their religion is expressable in the language of myth. They have even gone so far as to equate myth, in the modern era, with lies.

That’s fine but with the lack of evidence I otherwise have in this world showing me a deity that off the bat does not feel right and has some logical issues (at least in the description) is not the way to convince me

well there is NO way to convince you to feel something. You've put up the indefensible wall of feeling. As long as that missing feeling is your basis of argument, there's no convincing you. The debate just turns into this: :headbang:

One or the other what? Free will exists, and god does not interfere. I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

I'm suggesting that we are aware that almost every decision is interfered with (though not necessarily by God). You can't say that for God or Fate to EVER interfere is killing free will when we know other things we are absolutely incapable of controlling do all the time.

"The fact that we are genetically predisposed to certain actions [like what?], diseases, certain physical traits" has nothing to do with free will at all. Free will is about the consciousness, about being, about self-determination.

If we are 'coerced' by our genetics, the actions of our parents, etc, then by your argument, free will does not exist. I would disagree.

Coercion happens via another's will, not by physical conditions. It is subjection to another's will.

So since the will of your parents will forever affect your decision-making, then you have no free will. Perhaps you wish to reword. When I was in the military did I not still have free will? "A Few Good Men" specifically makes this point. The two gentlemen that 'accidentally' killed another Marine were obligated to stand up to the coercion and do what was right. They didn't. They were held responsible. I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're not doing so very well. Sorry.

Anger is not determined by "genetic predisposition" except in a deterministic version of reality. A physical response of anger is not the same as the emotional trigger, which is something we can control.

People are predisposed to certain types and levels of emotion. It's a fact that you and I can grow up in the exact same household and be treated exactly the same and react to things differently. Nature v. Nurture. People argue where the line is, but no one argues that there is no nature component. That nature component is a predisposition to certain reactions.

Determinism is the claim that allows us to lift responsibility for ourselves off our shoulders. I do not buy into determinism.

Determinism doesn't lift reponsibility. If I know my child always lies to get out of trouble and I ask my child a question I know where I know the answer will be a lie, I knew the answer before I asked the question and that the child would lie, but I would still punish the child. Responsibility is not lifted simply because the other choice had a 0% probability of occuring.

Why don't you show us some "logical issues". Logic is an insignificant tool used by humans as a last resort to describe something. Logic cannot be used to judge everything in the universe, some things don't have to make sense. Try to describe the mind of a mad man with "logic", it is impossible. Logic can only produce a thin grasp of the Universe, there are many things beyond perception of the "logical" human mind.
That’s fine but I don’t have faith so I fall back on logic … and in this case the logic fails.

Its all good and fine if you have faith but I don’t and sense the logic in at least the description does not hold up it is hardly convincing to me
I did not say logic could figure out god completely but without faith it is what I have to work with

well there is NO way to convince you to feel something. You've put up the indefensible wall of feeling. As long as that missing feeling is your basis of argument, there's no convincing you. The debate just turns into this: :headbang:
Eaxtly ;) lovely how that works when yours boils down to the same … in the end we either discover faith or we don’t (now you get a taste on the “but I have faith and that makes it true” argument we keep getting off the bat)

He died with the expectation of being raised … its kind of like working with an all powerful safety net … its just not as impressive

I would have been more impressed by a story where a 'real' act of self-sacrifice took place.

I'm an atheist because I believe all religions to be nothing more than tools to control people by the ruling classes. The priest class has always been hand in hand with the other ruling classes once a religion has become a state institution. This hasn't changed regardless of religion. It does, however, show that despite our high tech gadgets and rocket ships, we're not much different than the primitive man cowering in a cave, hiding from the wrath of the Thunder God.

I would have been more impressed by a story where a 'real' act of self-sacrifice took place.
Yeah one that really didn’t have an all powerful daddy to bring him back body and all so he can ascend…. He did nothing but survive a little undeserved pain (well a lot) wouldn’t be the first human that did that.
In the end did not cost him anything more then some time with his family … some pain and a bit of time

How is that a 'Coping Mechanism'?

Because it means the only person who has a right to judge your morality and what you do is you yourself.


How does NOT being able to appeal to a deity 'remove responsibility'?

See above


How does coming to terms with the fact that everything is finite, 'deny one's death'?

It devalues deaths importance which logically devalues life's importance.

This hasn't changed regardless of religion. It does, however, show that despite our high tech gadgets and rocket ships, we're not much different than the primitive man cowering in a cave, hiding from the wrath of the Thunder God.
Too many people nowadays believe that because something is "old" it must go. One day the ideas you so treasure will be considered out of date, and you will be a "mystical old fool", but religion will still be there. You always assume they will disprove the existence of God, but I believe one day it will be proven by the science you always seek comfort with and your theories will be thrown out in favor of the old "myths" you were so eager to throw out and accept new inferior ideas.

Yeah one that really didn’t have an all powerful daddy to bring him back body and all so he can ascend…. He did nothing but survive a little undeserved pain (well a lot) wouldn’t be the first human that did that.
In the end did not cost him anything more then some time with his family … some pain and a bit of time

He experienced an emmense amount of undeserved physical pain, emmense amount of emotional and psychological pain, and even more spiritual pain and THEN He died. Please do not trivialize that. Whether you accept His sacrifice or not, do not trivialize that sort of sacrifice for others. He could have stopped the whole thing at any moment with but a thought, but he endured the entire thing through to the conclusion because THAT was what was required for the sacrifice to have meaning.

Yeah one that really didn’t have an all powerful daddy to bring him back body and all so he can ascend…. He did nothing but survive a little undeserved pain (well a lot) wouldn’t be the first human that did that.
In the end did not cost him anything more then some time with his family … some pain and a bit of time

Jesus's expericnce itself was not unique, what was unique about it was what it did and who he was. He was the only human ever to not deserve death. He never sinned and the wages of sin are death. So he shouldnt die. But he did, thus the sin death cycle was broken. Its not the ammount of pain he went through that saves us, its the fact that he was the only human who actually didnt deserve to die (by the wages of sin is death logic).

Lee Strobel's works are not just linked to history, but also philosophy and theology. Specificly, "the case for faith" has nothing to do with History. It is about the objections to Chrisitanity on a philosophical level (eg, how can suffering exist when there is an omnibenevolent God).

Yes, then it uses history, archeology and science to support those claims and in some cases makes claims about how science should conduct itself. If Strobel involves himself in science, expect that he'll be addressed with science. Even so, he doesn't stand up to even a logical evaluation of his claims in "The Case for Christ" or "The Case for Faith".

I'm going to post a few excerpts from a book, just to stir things up a bit.
Because I can't help but feel we're not really discussing Christianity at all, but rather a humane snd perhaps more ethic adaptation of it.
While that's of course nice, I don't see the point. Not if we're trying to debate atheism and Christianity. Note that I've edited the original text a lot. Not to alter the content, but in an attempt not to offend the believers - the original wording is not very forgiving.
The full book can be found online here. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html)

Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

We know what followed. The good God, whose foresight, which is one of the divine faculties, should have warned him of what would happen, flew into a terrible rage; he cursed Satan, man, and the world created by himself. And, not content with smiting our ancestors themselves, he cursed them in all the generations to come, innocent of the crime committed by their forefathers. Then, remembering that he was not only a God of vengeance and wrath, but also a God of love, after having tormented the existence of a few milliards of poor human beings and condemned them to an eternal hell, he took pity on the rest, and, to save them and reconcile his eternal and divine love with his eternal and divine anger, he sent into the world, as an expiatory victim, his only son, that he might be killed by men. That is called the mystery of the Redemption, the basis of all the Christian religions. Still, if the divine Savior had saved the human world! But no; in the paradise promised by Christ, as we know, such being the formal announcement, the elect will number very few. The rest, the immense majority of the generations present and to come, will burn eternally in hell.

God admitted that Satan was right; he recognized that the devil did not deceive Adam and Eve in promising them knowledge and liberty as a reward for the act of disobedience which he bad induced them to commit; for, immediately they had eaten of the forbidden fruit, God himself said (see Bible): 'Behold, the man is become as one of the gods, to know good and evil; prevent him, therefore, from eating of the fruit of eternal life, lest he become immortal like Ourselves."

I quote good ol' Bakunin, because I can't see how he's wrong about his conclusions. Not unless we change Christianity.
I'll stop the quoting now though, and instead just mention a couple of other observations.

Howcome all the people in the world can observe the move from simplicity to complexity, but not the opposite. Especially since science can now confirm that that's a truism and perfectly understandable, given the laws of nature.
But Religion makes the opposite claim: That all things springs from perfection and falls into increasing simplicity.
I've never in my life heard a meaningful explanation for this.

Also, we can apply this exact thing to religion: There's no denying (at least not without completely ignoring all we know about history) that religion started out as fairly simple things. Polytheistic worthship of very human and material gods, and ancestors. With time, religion have slowly merged into much more complex and otherworldly concepts. And we know there's been at least a couple of failed attempts at monotheism before it cought on.
If this supreme divine thing was real, would doesn't it flat out contradict what we factualy know about the origins of religion?

Even Christianity doesn't deny the existence of other deities. God himself forbids people to have other gods than him. Regardless of how many historical facts people may wish to ignore or try to undermine, I should think it's a bit hard to disprove this when God himself provides evidence.

Thoughts anyone?

He experienced an emmense amount of undeserved physical pain, emmense amount of emotional and psychological pain, and even more spiritual pain and THEN He died. Please do not trivialize that. Whether you accept His sacrifice or not, do not trivialize that sort of sacrifice for others. He could have stopped the whole thing at any moment with but a thought, but he endured the entire thing through to the conclusion because THAT was what was required for the sacrifice to have meaning.
So again he accepted some undeserved pain … and then daddy erased all the permanent damage. Really would have been more of a sacrifice without the resurrection

Seems an awful lot like the sometimes crappy “happily ever after” endings to a mediocre movie

The main beef that most atheists in my religion (Therevadan Buddhists) hold is that we cannot prove that a omnipotent being actually exists. Prove that, and one has a basis for an arguement against atheism. The Bible does not constitute proof, because there are no other accounts of many (if not all) of the events that happened in the Bible.

There was supposedly some proof of this that a Christian scholar found in Egypt in the 19th century, but his testimony is dubious, as supposedly a group of Bedouin bandits "stole" the tablet that it was written on and tried to get gold out of it by heating the rock and pouring water over it repeatedly, which is an unusual way of extracting gold by any standards.

The deal I have is that in order for a god to exist and be "omnipotent", he/she/it would have to know the location and velocity of every particle of matter in the universe. This, we have found in quantum physics and relativity (perhaps the only thing that the theories agree on), is impossible.

So there :rolleyes:

So again he accepted some undeserved pain … and then daddy erased all the permanent damage. Really would have been more of a sacrifice without the resurrection
It was not the actual sacrifice, but the idea. He took the pain of death upon him to show an idea, which was that the pain of man was felt too by God. Many people at the time believed that God had no idea what it was like to be a man, but Jesus was a man and God at the same time. According to the rules of the holy trinity, God cannot be called Jesus' "daddy", because they are the same being with different aspects. Jesus is the aspect of man, that experienced human life so that God could understand the people that he had made. This was not the purpose of Jesus, though. He was here to show new ideas and detail to people about God as well as lay out the principles of good living.

no but that child is still expected to follow the rules of the parents don't you think?

Kind of dangerous tack to take, my friend...

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people have been known to hurt their own flesh-and-blood...

You think the child should be 'expected' to 'follow the rules' of parents that torture or abuse him/her?

It was not the actual sacrifice, but the idea. He took the pain of death upon him to show an idea, which was that the pain of man was felt too by God. Many people at the time believed that God had no idea what it was like to be a man, but Jesus was a man and God at the same time. According to the rules of the holy trinity, God cannot be called Jesus' "daddy", because they are the same being with different aspects. Jesus is the aspect of man, that experienced human life so that God could understand the people that he had made. This was not the purpose of Jesus, though. He was here to show new ideas and detail to people about God as well as lay out the principles of good living.
Then there is the argument that did anyone actually die? If only a section of the trinity died but he is part of the whole did anyone actually die other then the moral coil that his body was.

If so what was the sacrifice as no one actually died was it only the fact that it was more “undeserved”?

Genocide.

I don't feel I need to say any more about the idea of a 'loving, all powerful, all knowing, all good god'

Well if you were expecting Strobel to deliver indiffutable proof of his subjects, that is, obviously, not possible. I think Strobel did a great job of bringing in expert opinions to openly discuss the major arguements against a creator and a savior. Sure, someone else might have done a better job. Thing is, someone else didn't. I found Strobel very helpful in my decisions in coming to faith. Yes, I had doubts about some of his conclusions. I felt some didn't delve far enough. But in general, I felt really good about my faith after reading what he had to say. I feel his books are more than sufficient to get people to honestly question the arguments of Christianity and Creation vs. Evolution. After reading his books, one can then use the EXTENSIVE bibliography and start reading from the experts own books where the conclusions not met might be found. I think you are way to critical of a good man who wrote some good books with good information that might have good outcomes for more people who are searching for their own faith.

I don't know what 'indiffutable' means, so I have to make some suppositions about your intention. Forgive me if I suppose wrong. He did not openly discuss these arguments. He brought in so-called experts to make an unconvincing argument against a particular issue one might have with faith, but this 'investigative' journalist never asked, let alone addressed, the logical issues with the answers. He allowed his experts to make ridiculous claims about how science should be conducted unscientifically and did not challenge them on these facts. He could have and should have presented a more balanced discussion of these issues if he truly wanted to be convincing and, moreso, he should not have printed anything his 'experts' said that were simply ridiculous without qualifying their claims. I don't know how anyone could be convinced by this poor work. I would reject a Christianity if this book, or the collective works of Strobel, were the only argument for it. I would be highly suspect of anyone making the claim that they did not believe in God or Christianity before reading this book.

Because it means the only person who has a right to judge your morality and what you do is you yourself.


I'm guessing you either don't know what 'coping mechanism' means, or were not expecting to get called on the point - as this has nothing to do with it.


See above


See above.


It devalues deaths importance which logically devalues life's importance.

How does NOT expecting more AFTER death DEVALUE death? For the person who does NOT believe in an afterlife, DEATH is an event.. not a transition... it is far more 'valuable' than it is to someone who expects to 'live' past it.

The main beef that most atheists in my religion (Therevadan Buddhists) hold is that we cannot prove that a omnipotent being actually exists. Prove that, and one has a basis for an arguement against atheism. The Bible does not constitute proof, because there are no other accounts of many (if not all) of the events that happened in the Bible.
Then I suppose you shall use outside knowledge to prove Buddhism, then? Go ahead, we're waiting. And here is one thing that can prove that all Buddhist teachings are, like many people claim my religion of Christianity is, mystical elaborations. While Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, spent several decades teaching, none of his teachings were written down until several hundred years later. Seven hundred years before they were written down, eh? I suppose SOME changes could have occured to his "teachings" after SEVEN HUNDRED years of vocal communication.

Kind of dangerous tack to take, my friend...

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people have been known to hurt their own flesh-and-blood...

You think the child should be 'expected' to 'follow the rules' of parents that torture or abuse him/her?

you're taking the point to an absurd end. Are you suggesting that we should allow our 5 year old kids to dictate the rules they will and won't follow? Do you suggest that a parent has ultimately no authority over a child? If not, then what the hell does your question have to do with anything? :confused:

Then there is the argument that did anyone actually die? If only a section of the trinity died but he is part of the whole did anyone actually die other then the moral coil that his body was.

If so what was the sacrifice as no one actually died was it only the fact that it was more “undeserved”?
Jesus died. In a mortal body, you can feel pleasure and pain, fullness and starvation, you can feel everything that people feel. Death is painful, especially crucufixion, and to experience it would be the utmost feeling of mortality. In a mortal body, even a God can feel pain.

Even Christianity doesn't deny the existence of other deities. God himself forbids people to have other gods than him. Regardless of how many historical facts people may wish to ignore or try to undermine, I should think it's a bit hard to disprove this when God himself provides evidence.

Thoughts anyone?

Actually, if worshipping a deity proved its existence then we'd be having a completely different discussion. References to other deities are usually in reference to worshipping them. The other cases where they say us and such is usually explained as God talking to the angels, for example right before he sends the cherubim to guard the entrance to Eden.

Genocide.

I don't feel I need to say any more about the idea of a 'loving, all powerful, all knowing, all good god'
It is a human's job to decide what he/she does. God does not prevent you from killing, whether or not you kill is your own decision.

I'm suggesting that we are aware that almost every decision is interfered with (though not necessarily by God). You can't say that for God or Fate to EVER interfere is killing free will when we know other things we are absolutely incapable of controlling do all the time.
Free will necessitates self-determination. This simply means that we do things. No-one else, no-thing else, does them. If the cause of our determinations is external to ourselves, then that is not an instance of free will. If God determines that we shall do a thing, then it was not us who did it, because we are not responsible for that action. If God determines every action, as in the case where he would make us entirely sin-less, then we have no free will.

I don't believe in Fate, or predestination. I believe in will, because I have it.
If we are 'coerced' by our genetics, the actions of our parents, etc, then by your argument, free will does not exist. I would disagree.
We are coerced by other consciousnesses, not by genetics or circumstances. In those instances you use as example, free will exists.

So since the will of your parents will forever affect your decision-making, then you have no free will. Perhaps you wish to reword. When I was in the military did I not still have free will? "A Few Good Men" specifically makes this point. The two gentlemen that 'accidentally' killed another Marine were obligated to stand up to the coercion and do what was right. They didn't. They were held responsible. I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're not doing so very well. Sorry.
It's you who is re-wording, putting words in my mouth. :)

The will of my parents will not forever affect my decision-making. I make my own decisions, thanks. I am influenced by their ideas, their love, their circumstances, their presence, but they do not impose their will on me. Are you speaking in a more general "you"? Well then, the person who chooses to acquiesce to their parent's will is exercising their own free will. The person who acquiesces against their will (is coerced) to their parents (fellow consciousnesses) is not wholly responsible for their actions. I did not say that person ever loses free will.

People are predisposed to certain types and levels of emotion. It's a fact that you and I can grow up in the exact same household and be treated exactly the same and react to things differently. Nature v. Nurture. People argue where the line is, but no one argues that there is no nature component. That nature component is a predisposition to certain reactions.
Alright. Emotions have a physical and a mental aspect to them; they are produced by the body, and can be controlled by the mind. The variation in different people in different places, or even the same place, is not an indication of a fixed "predisposition." Some people have more self-control than others, some have more active hormones than others. Still others can learn self-control, or take drugs to control the hormones. The physical aspect has nothing to do with free will, as it is apart from us (objective) and therefore it is circumstance acting upon us. The latter, the trigger or mental aspect of the emotions that can be controlled by us, by the consciousness... *that* is an act of free will, not determined by something apart from us.

Determinism doesn't lift reponsibility. If I know my child always lies to get out of trouble and I ask my child a question I know where I know the answer will be a lie, I knew the answer before I asked the question and that the child would lie, but I would still punish the child. Responsibility is not lifted simply because the other choice had a 0% probability of occuring.
Determinism is not about predicting the future, it is about cause-and-effect. It serves to adequately describe the objective world, apart from our consciousness, but the fact that we have free will does not allow it to govern inside our consciousness, where we firmly place our "selves."

The idea that determinism is applicable to that mental (will) level entirely frees us from responsibility for our actions. That's why I oppose the philosophy. If it is not us determining things, but circumstance, then we have no free will.

No, because as others have pointed out, sin is the opposite to Gods will. For sin to be beyond our limitations to choose would mean that we are forced to do Gods will all the time. God did not want mindless automatons, he did not want people who did his will all the time simpley because they were forced.

Did not want mindless automatons that would do his will because they were forced...

So - "do as I say, or burn forever"...

DID want mindless automatons that would do his will because they were coerced...?

Speaking for myself (which I often do), I can see only one true faith, one true path to spiritual enlightenment:

Poultrytheism.

Although the modern world does contain much "evidence" in the way of "science" & "logic" to try & discredit the manifestly glorious and sacred reality that is 'The Uber Chicken', The Book of Sanders has revealed unto me the divine secret of 12 mystic & holy herbs & spices - Ye, though I walk in the valley of bad cooking, I will fear no indigestion.

At least, so it seems to me.

Cluckin' A.

~Finger Lickin Goodness

How does NOT expecting more AFTER death DEVALUE death? For the person who does NOT believe in an afterlife, DEATH is an event.. not a transition... it is far more 'valuable' than it is to someone who expects to 'live' past it.

well it certainly devalues life.

Speaking for myself (which I often do), I can see only one true faith, one true path to spiritual enlightenment:

Poultrytheism.

Although the modern world does contain much "evidence" in the way of "science" & "logic" to try & discredit the manifestly glorious and sacred reality that is 'The Uber Chicken', The Book of Sanders has revealed unto me the divine secret of 12 mystic & holy herbs & spices - Ye, though I walk in the valley of bad cooking, I will fear no indigestion.

At least, so it seems to me.

Cluckin' A.

~Finger Lickin Goodness
Yum!

(that's like, Amen)

well it certainly devalues life.
Why?

Because it means the only person who has a right to judge your morality and what you do is you yourself.

See above

It devalues deaths importance which logically devalues life's importance.
Ok those assertions would offend me if they weren't so simplistic.

1. Actually, it means that instead of you imagining your own judge and jury, you acknowledge that you are responsible for your actions and that others have every right to judge you by your actions. Pretty much the exact opposite of religion and what you conclude.

2. Again: No. It means you are responsible to the entire world, not just to an invisible friend that loves you unconditionally, and will forgive you everything.

3. If anything, if brings home the point that life is very short, and of immesurable value. You won't be granted any second chances, and perfect happiness is something you have to achive. It's not something you just have handed to you by default. For the 3rd time in a row, you manage to nail exactly why many atheists consider religion harmful to people's mental health and persuit of happiness.

Grave, have you ever considered that if something is omnipotent and omnisicent then there are some things that by definition it cannot do. For example, it cannot make mistakes, it cannot make itself cease to exist. This is not because it lacks the power to, but because it is part of the definition of those words. Perhaps you would tell me though in what other fashions you would consider God rule restrained.

Why could an omnipotent, omniscient being NOT make mistakes?

There is no logical reason to assume that, based on those criteria.

Also - of course, the 'god' in the Bible DOES make mistakes... perhaps you need to check the source material again?

I don't consider 'god' to have a constrained rule... I don't consider 'god', at all.

But, if I WERE to follow a god, I'd want one that scholars hadn't tried so earnestly to categorise into a tiny pigeon-hole of 'allowable' actions.

He experienced an emmense amount of undeserved physical pain, emmense amount of emotional and psychological pain, and even more spiritual pain and THEN He died. Please do not trivialize that. Whether you accept His sacrifice or not, do not trivialize that sort of sacrifice for others. He could have stopped the whole thing at any moment with but a thought, but he endured the entire thing through to the conclusion because THAT was what was required for the sacrifice to have meaning.

He deserved the pain. He claimed to be what he was not.

He was FAR from the only person ever to give their life in such a fashion... and certainly not the only person to die a martyr for a cause, or die rather than recant.

Unlike others, though... we are expected to believe that THIS crucifixion victim KNEW it was temporary, and that he would be okay again, a few days later.

Hardly the 'ultimate' sacrifice, when you know it's temporary...

Actually, if worshipping a deity proved its existence then we'd be having a completely different discussion. References to other deities are usually in reference to worshipping them. The other cases where they say us and such is usually explained as God talking to the angels, for example right before he sends the cherubim to guard the entrance to Eden.
Very well. I take it then, that claims of other gods lend no credibility to your own claims.

More to the point though, as far as I'm aware, God plainly states that people must not have any other gods.
I would've thought the Christian God would pull an Allah instead, if other gods were fake, ei. Call it worthship of false idols and the like.
The 'other gods' bit raises some serious questions in my mind. Especially considering that there were plenty of other gods around (real or not) when the command was given.

you're taking the point to an absurd end. Are you suggesting that we should allow our 5 year old kids to dictate the rules they will and won't follow? Do you suggest that a parent has ultimately no authority over a child? If not, then what the hell does your question have to do with anything? :confused:

Not me, my friend... you are the one supporting a view that states the children of children of children (many times removed) somehow have to suffer eternal torment because of their great ancestors parents, UNLESS they carry out some bizarre ritual of ego-boosting to some distant icon.

I have authority over my daughter, but I'm not going to burn her to death for disobeying me... which view is more 'absurd'?

Not me, my friend... you are the one supporting a view that states the children of children of children (many times removed) somehow have to suffer eternal torment because of their great ancestors parents, UNLESS they carry out some bizarre ritual of ego-boosting to some distant icon.

I have authority over my daughter, but I'm not going to burn her to death for disobeying me... which view is more 'absurd'?
You completely forget that GnI's child can appeal to others for help for/against and even rescue from GnI.

An unbeliever can't.