NationStates Jolt Archive

God created us as the perfect beings we where at the start og our life on earth good but satan came and corrupted us and god them sent he one begotten son to earth to save us from our sins and at that point if we as humans are willing to accept that then we are not hell-bound but bound to the ever lasting light of heaven to spend all eternity with god and remeber it isint god that sends us to hell it's ourselves

Besides most of the laws and ethics you live by today are thanks to christianity back in roman times you chucked a baby outside to die if it looked weak and in places like germania and cannibalism was practise and human sacrifice was accpetable in most eastern regions and human rights are based on the bible slavery was banned thanks to christians the day christianity became the official religion of the roman empire was the day all that is good smiled on the earth because finally a real form of civilization was starting

the thing is some bastards in italy screwedup and ruined our modern day reputation by becoming corrupt and sending us to wars we shouldnt of had anything to do with

A piece of advice: Use the full-stop key, it makes your posts so much easier to read. ;)

One of the qualities of God that was missing from the origional post was that God is also transcendant. This means that of his very nature we cannot expect to understand the way God works. We can hypothesise all we like, but ultimately we have to put faith in his judgement. After all, God is omniscient, and we are only human. Who are we to question his judgement?

One of the qualities of God that was missing from the origional post was that God is also transcendant. This means that of his very nature we cannot expect to understand the way God works. We can hypothesise all we like, but ultimately we have to put faith in his judgement. After all, God is omniscient, and we are only human. Who are we to question his judgement?
My problem is current Christianity as presented does not lend itself to feeling like “gods judgment” to me. Therefore I have to doubt if it is truly as god wishes.

Just because people claim and believe it is gods judgment does not move it out of the realm of questionability. If that were the case why don’t you believe in Islam? Or Judaism? Or any of the other religions out there … they all say they are based on gods judgment … who are you to question gods judgment?

My problem is current Christianity as presented does not lend itself to feeling like “gods judgment” to me. Therefore I have to doubt if it is truly as god wishes.

Just because people claim and believe it is gods judgment does not move it out of the realm of questionability. If that were the case why don’t you believe in Islam? Or Judaism? Or any of the other religions out there … they all say they are based on gods judgment … who are you to question gods judgment?

Ah, but it is you who are questioning God's judgement. Let me explain:

I believe the Lord chooses to draw people to Him in many different ways. For me, that is throught the Catholic Church, and for others, it is through, among other things, those religions that you mentioned. The Lord will draw people to Him in whatever way he pleases, and he has chosen to draw me through his son. Who are you to question that choice?

You see how silly quesitoning God is? Ultimately we are all unfit to do so.

Ah, but it is you who are questioning God's judgement. Let me explain:

I believe the Lord chooses to draw people to Him in many different ways. For me, that is throught the Catholic Church, and for others, it is through, among other things, those religions that you mentioned. The Lord will draw people to Him in whatever way he pleases, and he has chosen to draw me through his son. Who are you to question that choice?

You see how silly quesitoning God is? Ultimately we are all unfit to do so.
But questioning religions is not directly questioning god … what I challenge is their descriptions and requirements not the existence of god itself

In the end I am questioning the ability for humans to get the description right and as such their right to claim in entirety the conditions and requirements for “following” god the claim that they are doing gods will therefore unquestionable is characteristic of a cop out for me .

God may very well exist but that does not mean I have to accept the religions that claim to have the whole truth with one hand and try to force my lifestyle and choices with the other hand. Specially when their “truth” does not fit with my perceived truth

In the end I hold dearly to my ability to question religions

But questioning religions is not directly questioning god … what I challenge is their descriptions and requirements not the existence of god itself

In the end I am questioning the ability for humans to get the description right and as such their right to claim in entirety the conditions and requirements for “following” god the claim that they are doing gods will therefore unquestionable is characteristic of a cop out for me .

God may very well exist but that does not mean I have to accept the religions that claim to have the whole truth with one hand and try to force my lifestyle and choices with the other hand. Specially when their “truth” does not fit with my perceived truth

In the end I hold dearly to my ability to question religions

And so you should.

And so you should.
I guess in the end my problem is trust in humans to know the truth (not necessarily intentional deception)

So without some proof and no feeling of belief from any of the religions I have so far studied I got to question the rights of others to impose non necessary restrictions on my decisions … if they use religion as a source or reasoning for creating said restrictions they better be up to me questioning the validity of the source :)

(I am sure I am wandering I am on 48 hours awake … tell me if none of this is making any sense lol)

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.

Was that the faultiest thing you could find about Christianity? If so, you're not trying very hard - the entire concept of God siring himself with a virgin and coming to earth to usurp his own authority is beyond ridiculous.

Was that the faultiest thing you could find about Christianity? If so, you're not trying very hard - the entire concept of God siring himself with a virgin and coming to earth to usurp his own authority is beyond ridiculous.

When did that happen? :confused:

When did that happen? :confused:

Technically, it didn't - at least, not outside the pages of Christian mythology.

Technically, it didn't - at least, not outside the pages of Christian mythology.

Fine then :rolleyes: When did it happen within the pages of "christian mythology"

Fine then :rolleyes: When did it happen within the pages of "christian mythology"

I assume you're asking about the part where he was usurping his own authority? Well, since God had previously made it clear that he is not a man or a son of man, and that there never was nor would there ever be a savior beside him - I'd say that by coming to earth as a man and a son of man, and presenting himself as the savior of the world through whom everyone on earth must first go to get to even talk to God - well, clearly he was usurping his own authority.

I assume you're asking about the part where he was usurping his own authority? Well, since God had previously made it clear that he is not a man or a son of man, and that there never was nor would there ever be a savior beside him - I'd say that by coming to earth as a man and a son of man, and presenting himself as the savior of the world through whom everyone on earth must first go to get to even talk to God - well, clearly he was usurping his own authority.

Can you quote any biblical references to this? I'm genuinely interested. My biblical knowledge isnt so great

Can you quote any biblical references to this? I'm genuinely interested. My biblical knowledge isnt so great

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Isaiah 43:10-13 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

Isaiah 45:20-22 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

Hosea 13:1-4 When Ephraim spake trembling, he exalted himself in Israel; but when he offended in Baal, he died. And now they sin more and more, and have made them molten images of their silver, and idols according to their own understanding, all of it the work of the craftsmen: they say of them, Let the men that sacrifice kiss the calves. Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chaff that is driven with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as the smoke out of the chimney. Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

That seems pretty clear to me. Compare those Old Testament passages with passages from the New Testament:

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 16:23-28 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

So basically God said that he was the only God and only he could save us but by the logic of the Trinity is Jesus not God himself just in a different form? Therefore can all of the quotes you have given from the Old Testament not apply to Jesus?

So basically God said that he was the only God and only he could save us but by the logic of the Trinity is Jesus not God himself just in a different form? Therefore can all of the quotes you have given from the Old Testament not apply to Jesus?

No. I'd say he made it pretty clear that God is not a man or even a son of man, and that men should not worship strange gods they may find among them. He was also clear on the point about there never being another savior beside him - ever. Jesus has also admitted that he is a separate being from God:

Matthew 19:16,17 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Nevermind the contradictory advice given here - Jesus has clearly admitted that he is a separate being from God.

Nevermind the contradictory advice given here - Jesus has clearly admitted that he is a separate being from God.

But in John 10:30 Jesus said - I and the Father are one.

Fair enough you could argue that he isnt claiming to be God but when the Jews stated that they were stoning him for blasphemy and claiming to be God, Jesus never corrects them

Just a quick question: Why is the old testament even in the bible?
It's not as if christians even follow it that closely, Christians eat pig meat, which is forbidden in the old testament is it not?
Christians dont celebrate passover, but this is probably the most important event in the old testament.

But he could choose to only create those he knew would not be hell bound.

AAAhhh yes...
God is supposed to be Omnipotent, Omnigenic, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent.
Because then he would not be omnibenevolent. Benevolence has to incorporate justice. without justice he is not being loving by showing us our faults.

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.

To do that eliminates true free will. If you can't chose to live contrary to God's will, harmony with the universe, law of love, you don't have free will.

Just a quick question: Why is the old testament even in the bible?
It's not as if christians even follow it that closely, Christians eat pig meat, which is forbidden in the old testament is it not?
Christians dont celebrate passover, but this is probably the most important event in the old testament.

Not all Christian's eat pig meat and the issue of Passover is a littel more complex. It is important to know about, but since the event it was a precursor of, Christ's sacrifice in our behalf, has already happened, the services of the earthly tabernacle are no longer of value except as they help us understand Christ's sacrifice... ;)

But shouldn't God's book be beyond corruption?Which is why everyone should learn Greek and Aramaic, so they can read the original texts that have been preserved.

Just a quick question: Why is the old testament even in the bible?
It's not as if christians even follow it that closely, Christians eat pig meat, which is forbidden in the old testament is it not?
Christians dont celebrate passover, but this is probably the most important event in the old testament.

its beacuse the old testiment is the history of our faith,

But shouldn't God's book be beyond corruption?
Ideally... but note who is doing the translation and the latent problems in every language and problems in translating between two unrelated languages... nevermind the fact that some translators might have a certain interest in mind and is willing to twist some of the meanings of passages or to take advantage of certain terms in one language that is rather vague and pick a meaning suiting their own interests. It's all a mess... tho there is a more academic translation of the Bible out there tho I heard understanding it is restrictively hard... forgot what it was tho.

its beacuse the old testiment is the history of our faith,
It's also the one of the foundations of faith. Remember, Jesus impressed the scholars of Judaic laws... Jesus was basing all his teachings on something or the original church wouldn't have been considered an off shoot of Judaism by the Roman Empire.

In simple terms an all knowing God would know your lifepath before you were created and could choose to only creat those that would go to Heaven.

Even if all of the answers to your questions were, "yes" (they are not all "yes"), you've haven't made the case for faulty logic.

But shouldn't God's book be beyond corruption?
It gets worse, because the greek version of the bible is based on a hebrew version that is lost (and different from the current Hebrew Torah). To further muddle things, the King James Bible was translated from a hybrid of the Hebrew Torah and the greek translation.

You know something? I think you and many of the others who feel so compelled to vociferously attack a religion which has done you no wrong, do so out of fear. Why are you so afraid of Christianity and Christians?

What makes you think Christianity and Christians have done him (or me) no wrong?

As far as I'm concerned, attempts to block medical research on religious grounds are 'harm', to cite only one example

Wow you have SO missed the whole point. An omniscient God knows before he creates you if you are going to heaven or hell. This means that God makes somepeople for the sole purpose of populating Hell. God made them rotten. AN OMINSCIENCE GOD PRECLUDES FREE WILL! No body can truly deserve divine punishment because by the will of God they were made that way.


I don't speak for everyone, I'm sure, but...

1. Correct.

2. I can't really understand the question because of your gramatical errors/typos. I think you're asking why an omnipotent God would create people who disobey him and go to Hell. The answer to that question is that God chose to physically demostrate he is just by sending those deserving to Hell and chose to physically demonstrate his mercy by forgiving all those who call on him, even though they would otherwise be condemned to Hell. I suppose you think that a loving God wouldn't create people just to send them to Hell... well, they if they're still rotten people, and they get their chance for redemption just like everyone else, and they still get what they ultimately deserve, I don't see the problem.

3. He could have and he did. He's the kind of guy who likes to back up his talk with actions. See #s 2 and 4. If he didn't allow the existence of evil, judgment on the wicked, or forgiveness of the humbled, and everyone was just good and spotless and perfect, maybe you would say, "yeah, he says he's all merciful and just and everything, but what has he ever done? it's not like anyone deserves punishment or anyone needs his forgiveness. I'll bet that if he was put to the test, he would (1) not forgive people who crossed him, (2) unwilling or unable to control people who did wrong, and (3) it's not like he would understand what we're going through anyway... we're just people."

4. That's a pretty stupid way of looking at it. God tells us that he loves us so much, he would die on the cross for us. And he chose to prove it. so :p

But in John 10:30 Jesus said - I and the Father are one.

I would argue that he meant they are one in purpose (although that would be a questionable statement in itself, if you assume that God was his Father at any rate).

Fair enough you could argue that he isnt claiming to be God but when the Jews stated that they were stoning him for blasphemy and claiming to be God, Jesus never corrects them

He also implies that the children of God are gods themselves (he was misquoting Psalms 82:6, by the way), so I don't think he was actually saying he was God any more than his brothers and sisters in God. Here is Psalms 82:6 in context, in case you are interested:

Psalms 82:1-8 [A Psalm of Asaph.] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Christians might do well to pay attention to the previous chapter, particularly this verse:

Psalms 81:9 There shall no strange god be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god.

The Bible is not even interally consistant the 4 Gospel vary wildly on the whole Easter story. Who was at tomb how many angels etc.


I have several sources that show the bible's unrivaled veracity, but I'm kinda falling asleep from the loretabs I've taken for my broken toe..../doze

mmm pain killers
you people must love debaiting religon.. keep up the work.. they're fun to read when im bored

The ONLY miracle Benny Hinn ever did was that friggin comb over not only id he a fraud (HBO did a great expose on him a couple of years ago) but a poor Christian as he preaches non biblical doctrines.


Correction... Benny Hill is a commedian who performs with half naked women :p
there are miracles happening now. yet people will believe only what they want to believe.

and you call healing "Minor?" if you won't believe in healings, what makes you believe anything else?

There are records of many miracles happening available on the web. sorry if I don't link to them but the one that sticks out is the Lady of Fatima.

Most of her predictions are true, and the Catholic Church still has to reveal her last "secret"

But the capacity to sin always exists, regardless of which choice you make. Besides, only Christ managed to have all good choices ;)

How did Christ only have good choices? He was tempted by Lucifer supposedly for forty days, right? Doesn't that mean he was given lots of bad choices? Maybe he only chose good choices, which I personally don't believe, but certainly he was given the option to sin.

Hey This was on the 1st page of his book. If he couldn't make it past page one with such a glaring error why should I? ;)


Was that the faultiest thing you could find about Christianity? If so, you're not trying very hard - the entire concept of God siring himself with a virgin and coming to earth to usurp his own authority is beyond ridiculous.

In response to the originator of this thread:

Logic assumes there is an ordered universe and, thus, logic assumes God. So, your very argument presumes a creator. Furthermore, the concept of "good" is based on God and has not meaning or validity without Him. There is no basis for morality, or "good", without a god who is justified in demanding certain behavior of us. So, I ask you, why do you use logic if you deny its creator? In truth, you cannot be consistent in your stated beliefs, that is, you cannot take them to their logical limits, if you do not take into account God.

WOW! Is Jumping to conclusions your only exercise??? I said CHRISTIANITY
is built on faultly logic. Did I say "THERE IS NO GOD!" ? No. Did I say "All religion is build on faulty logic." ? Again no. I am speaking specificly of Christianity ONLY.


In response to the originator of this thread:

Logic assumes there is an ordered universe and, thus, logic assumes God. So, your very argument presumes a creator. Furthermore, the concept of "good" is based on God and has not meaning or validity without Him. There is no basis for morality, or "good", without a god who is justified in demanding certain behavior of us. So, I ask you, why do you use logic if you deny its creator? In truth, you cannot be consistent in your stated beliefs, that is, you cannot take them to their logical limits, if you do not take into account God.

Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree and had their eyes opened and able to make their own decisions. We were the ones who messed up not God. The idea of God making an error is an oxymoron isn't it?

In response to the originator of this thread:

Logic assumes there is an ordered universe and, thus, logic assumes God. So, your very argument presumes a creator. Furthermore, the concept of "good" is based on God and has not meaning or validity without Him. There is no basis for morality, or "good", without a god who is justified in demanding certain behavior of us. So, I ask you, why do you use logic if you deny its creator? In truth, you cannot be consistent in your stated beliefs, that is, you cannot take them to their logical limits, if you do not take into account God.

That is total BS, there is absolutely nothing that requires intelligence to create order short of a circular argument. We see chrystaline structures form without guidance of any sort, highly ordered and highly complex. The only way you can claims that order needs guidance as you have just done is to create a circular argument in which you presuppose order comes from the Divine. Think before you speak indeed.

That is total BS, there is absolutely nothing that requires intelligence to create order short of a circular argument. We see chrystaline structures form without guidance of any sort, highly ordered and highly complex. The only way you can claims that order needs guidance as you have just done is to create a circular argument in which you presuppose order comes from the Divine. Think before you speak indeed.

Or perhaps crystal formation is evidence for laws of nature. And then, one can argue, that laws of nature point to an origin, an ordered one, i.e., God. Alternatively, the laws of nature could have originated from chaos, although that is highly unlikely, and given that there is no proof of this, perhaps a little foolish to assume that they did so.

To say that crystals form without any sort of guidance is a bit presumptious. They form under the 'guidance' of the laws of nature (e.g., the most stable energy form).

Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree and had their eyes opened and able to make their own decisions. We were the ones who messed up not God. The idea of God making an error is an oxymoron isn't it?

So basically man at some point separated from the other animals and became as "gods" - it's called "evolution". Deal with it.

Hey This was on the 1st page of his book. If he couldn't make it past page one with such a glaring error why should I? ;)

Yep - when taken literally (as the fundies do), the bible is a huge load of crap.

In response to the originator of this thread:

Logic assumes there is an ordered universe and, thus, logic assumes God. So, your very argument presumes a creator. Furthermore, the concept of "good" is based on God and has not meaning or validity without Him. There is no basis for morality, or "good", without a god who is justified in demanding certain behavior of us. So, I ask you, why do you use logic if you deny its creator? In truth, you cannot be consistent in your stated beliefs, that is, you cannot take them to their logical limits, if you do not take into account God.


Drinking prior to posting is not a good idea. Let's break it down:

1) Logic NEVER ASSUMES the supernatural (i.e. god)

Therefore the very argument could never assume there was a creator. By stating that logic would ever assume anything outside of the concrete, proven set of axioms, you clearly state that you don't understand logic.

2) While your concept of good may be based on god, I see no god in a fictitious character that has caused several wars, deaths, and some people believe put Bush in power. What's good about those things?

I have had several beliefs and morals involved in my decisions in life. Never have I recieved illuminated word from on high to direct my actions. Belief in a god (or gods) and then being a pompous ass about seemingly goes to prove that you don't even follow your own belief system. Just saying "I have faith and that makes me better than you" is very un-christian and therefore inadvertently pushes the point of why atheism is better than Fundy Fervor.

Yep - when taken literally (as the fundies do), the bible is a huge load of crap.

When one refuses to take the Bible literally, then one is left with one's own opinion on the final authority of what is truth and what isn't. That's like taking away any potential that the Bible has to change your life with the truth. Life changes hurt, so it's little wonder that people are relatively quick to disregard the Bible as having any 'literal' intent. It certainly is the easier path.

Taking the Bible literally does not mean that you automatically start being a preacher or a Bible basher. There is something rather beautiful about an individual who takes Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' or 'loving your neighbour' as literal, for example. It certainly would have stopped a lot of needless war and hatred.

God is a comedian.

I guess my answer to the topic author's question from a Christian perspective is that firstly God is loving and just - he wishes the best for us as his special creation made in his image. And because his loving, just character God has given us the free will to make choices about how we live our lives; he would however be doing us a disservice if he did not point out that right or wrong our actions have consequences.

God's standards are perfect and absolute therefore we have absolutely no right whatsoever to any form of relationship with him because of the bad things we have done (what Christians call sin).

When Jesus came to Earth his whole life pointed towards the sacrifice he was going to make of his own free will - to take the punishment for our sins. As Jesus was sinless, the sacrifce he made was total and perfect wiping clean of our sin.

The judgement due to be poured out on us Jesus has taken in our place, we are now offered a choice - whether to accept this gift of amazing unconditional love. Whoever we are and whatever we have done through Jesus we can have a relationship with God. That relationship gives us life to the full on earth and a perfect relationship in heaven after that.

Was Christ's death on the cross suicide? It would have been if that were the end of what happened, the evidence that Jesus rose three days later for Christians is proof that Jesus had indeed defeated sin and set us free. This is what is known as the gospel or good news which the rest of the new testiment proclaims whilst documenting how this good news spread like wildfire throughout the world at the time.

Christianity like all religions rests on faith i.e. choosing to believe - however the radical nature of what is being said - because of what has happened God has chosen to love you unconditionally (unique amongst all religions) and yearns to have a relationship with you, if you are willing. This message is carried throughout the bible and is backed up by the experience of Christians throughout the globe and therefore I believe makes Christianity a cohesive belief system and worthy of further investigation.

What about the part that mandates "stoning the disobeiant child" or advocates sell your daughter into slavery or the part about men shaving being an abomination?


When one refuses to take the Bible literally, then one is left with one's own opinion on the final authority of what is truth and what isn't. That's like taking away any potential that the Bible has to change your life with the truth. Life changes hurt, so it's little wonder that people are relatively quick to disregard the Bible as having any 'literal' intent. It certainly is the easier path.

Taking the Bible literally does not mean that you automatically start being a preacher or a Bible basher. There is something rather beautiful about an individual who takes Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' or 'loving your neighbour' as literal, for example. It certainly would have stopped a lot of needless war and hatred.

What about the part that mandates "stoning the disobeiant child" or advocates sell your daughter into slavery or the part about men shaving being an abomination?
Please give a direct quote of the passage. Also remember that these rules were written for a fragile race where one bad family screwed it up for generations.

What about the part that mandates "stoning the disobeiant child" or advocates sell your daughter into slavery or the part about men shaving being an abomination?

Do you not see a difference between a part of the scriptures that records the laws of that particular community and the teachings that are meant for us today?

I don't remember the bit about ADVOCATING the sale of your daughter. Pehaps you are exaggerating that one. I think it was common practice when the rule was given, and the rule was meant to improve the fate of those unfortunate daughters. Much like abortion today. No one really likes abortion, but perhaps it has become such a part of our Westernised life that to forbid it today would only make matters worse. (this is only an example, and perhaps a poor one at that)

As for men shaving, and that somehow being an abomination, I think you have really mixed things up. Apostle Paul suggests that it is a shame for a woman to have her head shaven. Or perhaps you are referring to the Nazarites, who had to take a vow, and breaking the vow was shown by shaving. Or perhaps you got mixed up with one of the ancient cleansing rites, where the whole body was to be shaved after being in contact with a dead body.

In each case, these are not teachings that have to be followed by today's communities. If you read the Bible carefully, you can see the difference between the Ten Commandments and the rule about not wearing a cloth made with two different materials. I suppose God never meant for us to throw away our brains when it comes to reading the Bible.

I guess my answer to the topic author's question from a Christian perspective is that firstly God is loving and just - he wishes the best for us as his special creation made in his image. And because his loving, just character God has given us the free will to make choices about how we live our lives; he would however be doing us a disservice if he did not point out that right or wrong our actions have consequences.

God's standards are perfect and absolute therefore we have absolutely no right whatsoever to any form of relationship with him because of the bad things we have done (what Christians call sin).

When Jesus came to Earth his whole life pointed towards the sacrifice he was going to make of his own free will - to take the punishment for our sins. As Jesus was sinless, the sacrifce he made was total and perfect wiping clean of our sin.

The judgement due to be poured out on us Jesus has taken in our place, we are now offered a choice - whether to accept this gift of amazing unconditional love. Whoever we are and whatever we have done through Jesus we can have a relationship with God. That relationship gives us life to the full on earth and a perfect relationship in heaven after that.

Was Christ's death on the cross suicide? It would have been if that were the end of what happened, the evidence that Jesus rose three days later for Christians is proof that Jesus had indeed defeated sin and set us free. This is what is known as the gospel or good news which the rest of the new testiment proclaims whilst documenting how this good news spread like wildfire throughout the world at the time.

Christianity like all religions rests on faith i.e. choosing to believe - however the radical nature of what is being said - because of what has happened God has chosen to love you unconditionally (unique amongst all religions) and yearns to have a relationship with you, if you are willing. This message is carried throughout the bible and is backed up by the experience of Christians throughout the globe and therefore I believe makes Christianity a cohesive belief system and worthy of further investigation.

Well put, Brunodom. That's the truth as I see it too. But how do you get the 'others' to see it the way we do? Of course, it is their choice. But I wouldn't mind finding a way to help them see, even just for a moment, what it looks like from the perspective of one who does believe. But I suppose that's God job.

I notice there are strange benefits to following some of those archaic rules. Like only wearing one fiber of clothing on your body or not eating pork. Cotton Ts are the best for heavy labor. Pork seriously messes my stomach up. I don't have to follow them, but if I did, there are strange benefits that some of us do not even know yet.

Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree and had their eyes opened and able to make their own decisions. We were the ones who messed up not God. The idea of God making an error is an oxymoron isn't it?

The fact that gaining knowledge is the original sin says quite a lot about Christianity's outlook.

Canada City']God is a comedian.
And we're a pretty tough crowd.

In response to the originator of this thread:

Logic assumes there is an ordered universe and, thus, logic assumes God. So, your very argument presumes a creator. Furthermore, the concept of "good" is based on God and has not meaning or validity without Him. There is no basis for morality, or "good", without a god who is justified in demanding certain behavior of us. So, I ask you, why do you use logic if you deny its creator? In truth, you cannot be consistent in your stated beliefs, that is, you cannot take them to their logical limits, if you do not take into account God.

Nonsense. If God is the explanation for order in the Universe then what is the explanation for the order in God?

"God has order within Himself."

Then why can't the Universe have order within itself?

Nice try, but that one was defeated about 200 years ago. Check out Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Perfect Number, I name you Cleanthes.

Now, on to Kant's Moral Argument, which you present. I point out to you that there is no logical contradiction in believing in objective standards of morality without the existence of (a) God. Your move.

The fact that gaining knowledge is the original sin says quite a lot about Christianity's outlook.
Instead of gaining life? Really you want to become some nerd bent on world dominiation or some natural man that has the strength of a lion and is swift as a deer, who feels life coursing through his soul and spirit, who doesn't fear or worry about anything.

The original poster is right. Christianity isn't logic, it is faith.

Canada City']God is a comedian.

I thought He was a DJ. Or are Faithless lying to me, for reasons... well, for reasons suggested by their name?

Now, on to Kant's Moral Argument, which you present. I point out to you that there is no logical contradiction in believing in objective standards of morality without the existence of (a) God. Your move.

Yes there is. You need a God to have objective morality otherwise where does the morality come from. Without (a) God or other outside influence defining it then you only have humans deciding what humans should do which is not objective morallity. Without a God, objecitive morality could be canabilisim as long as everyone agreed on it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

Instead of gaining life?

No, I mean that knowledge is seen as sinful. Compare with this quote from the Buddha:

'Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.'

As you wish

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother...all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die.... (Deut. 21:18, 21).

CLEAR ENOUGH ?

Please give a direct quote of the passage. Also remember that these rules were written for a fragile race where one bad family screwed it up for generations.

Yes there is. You need a God to have objective morality otherwise where does the morality come from. Without (a) God or other outside influence defining it then you only have humans deciding what humans should do which is not objective morallity. Without a God, objecitive morality could be canabilisim as long as everyone agreed on it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

No. There. Isn't.

You are automatically making the assumption that God is required for morality; thus, your argument is circular. What you mean to say is that without God as an intermediary there is no way that human beings can know what morality is, and thus if there is no God humans seem to have to "make morality up." This is wrong. Morality can exist independently of God, and, indeed, must, or you end up with seemingly absurd consequences, which I shall demonstrate later if you require.

Stoning children and slavery great stuff that. :rolleyes:

I notice there are strange benefits to following some of those archaic rules. Like only wearing one fiber of clothing on your body or not eating pork. Cotton Ts are the best for heavy labor. Pork seriously messes my stomach up. I don't have to follow them, but if I did, there are strange benefits that some of us do not even know yet.

So you are able to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow?
What crap! It's either all the word of God, or all shit, not a mix of the 2.

Lev 19:27

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.


Do you not see a difference between a part of the scriptures that records the laws of that particular community and the teachings that are meant for us today?

I don't remember the bit about ADVOCATING the sale of your daughter. Pehaps you are exaggerating that one. I think it was common practice when the rule was given, and the rule was meant to improve the fate of those unfortunate daughters. Much like abortion today. No one really likes abortion, but perhaps it has become such a part of our Westernised life that to forbid it today would only make matters worse. (this is only an example, and perhaps a poor one at that)

As for men shaving, and that somehow being an abomination, I think you have really mixed things up. Apostle Paul suggests that it is a shame for a woman to have her head shaven. Or perhaps you are referring to the Nazarites, who had to take a vow, and breaking the vow was shown by shaving. Or perhaps you got mixed up with one of the ancient cleansing rites, where the whole body was to be shaved after being in contact with a dead body.

In each case, these are not teachings that have to be followed by today's communities. If you read the Bible carefully, you can see the difference between the Ten Commandments and the rule about not wearing a cloth made with two different materials. I suppose God never meant for us to throw away our brains when it comes to reading the Bible.

So you are able to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow?
What crap! It's either all the word of God, or all shit, not a mix of the 2.

Lev 19:27

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Sadly, there is an argument for ignoring inconvenient bits of Scripture - the Moral/Ceremonial Law differentiation - essentially, that it's outdated. Hilariously, this is exactly the argument that modern reformers and liberals want to use, and conservatives, who of course don't follow kosher food laws and so on (and thereby show their acceptance of) are ignoring.

The existence of pure evil in the world confirms my belief in an almighty God. I can not think of a better proof of the existence of pure good other than the existence of pure evil.

Maybe you think like this because you (like Christianity) don't follow logic.

If God is Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, and the creator of all; then pure evil can not exist.

If God is all good or as you put it "pure good", then he can not give birth/existence to pure evil......... No, not even for the greater good. That just makes that which is evil, really good. Also it ignores the fact that whatever made God create evil in the first place, he could of rectified through his omnipotence and through his omniscience would surely know of a better way than to create "pure evil".

Just face it, 'good' and 'evil' are human constructs that our feeble minds use to explain this wonderous universe. You could not have your "pure good" unless you had your "pure evil", and like the concepts 'up' and 'down' the two only have a basis from the point they both originate from and revolve around.
In the end, good people will always look down on bad people, and should a God exist, they will not look down on anyone and merely try to help.

However in actuality and I'm sorry to say this, but this whole topic is moot!

You can not prove or disprove the existence of God with any form of logic.
For one, logic must be contingent and have clearly defined start and end points. We can not determine that which does not inhabit the same domain we do. Mainly due to a little thing called the 'Incompleteness Theorem' by Kurt Gödel.

For any formal theory in which basic arithmetical facts are provable, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement which, if the theory is consistent, is true but not provable or refutable in the theory.

Every arguement, piece of evidence, or chosen logic - is reversable.

So you are able to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow?
What crap! It's either all the word of God, or all shit, not a mix of the 2.

Lev 19:27

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

When I read the Bible, I try to understand what God would want to say to me. I don't assume it to be literal or otherwise. I see the importance in understanding the context of what the writer was trying to say. This is not picking and choosing, but rather trying to see what is relevant, what should be obeyed, what God really wanted to communicate.....every verse has its context.
I don't see why God would want me to stop shaving my chin. But I understand that for those people to whom the verse was written, it may have been important, considering that they were priests and needed some sort of regulations on how to conduct themselves and maintain their appearance. After all, it was a very important job to teach people about how to have reverence for God.
That is the lesson that is to be learned from such a verse. But you need sense to see it.

When one refuses to take the Bible literally, then one is left with one's own opinion on the final authority of what is truth and what isn't. That's like taking away any potential that the Bible has to change your life with the truth. Life changes hurt, so it's little wonder that people are relatively quick to disregard the Bible as having any 'literal' intent. It certainly is the easier path.

Taking the Bible literally does not mean that you automatically start being a preacher or a Bible basher. There is something rather beautiful about an individual who takes Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' or 'loving your neighbour' as literal, for example. It certainly would have stopped a lot of needless war and hatred.

And then there's Jesus's teachings about hating, rejecting and abandoning your family if you want to be his disciple, or stealing the property of others for him if it will make him look like he's fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy, or destroying a fig tree to show off his great powers to others, or selling your garment to buy a sword to cut off the high priest's servant's ear when your idol gets arrested (that's so he can show off his great and wondrous powers, proving once again to the ignorant that he is somehow a fulfillment of prophecy). I've found that the teachings of Jesus are kind of a mixed bag, and can be interpreted in many ways. It is better to use one's good sense and judgement rather than to take a book that was written in a different time, place, language and culture as 100% literal truth.

And then there's Jesus's teachings about hating, rejecting and abandoning your family if you want to be his disciple, or stealing the property of others for him if it will make him look like he's fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy, or destroying a fig tree to show off his great powers to others, or selling your garment to buy a sword to cut off the high priest's servant's ear when your idol gets arrested (that's so he can show off his great and wondrous powers, proving once again to the ignorant that he is somehow a fulfillment of prophecy). I've found that the teachings of Jesus are kind of a mixed bag, and can be interpreted in many ways. It is better to use one's good sense and judgement rather than to take a book that was written in a different time, place, language and culture as 100% literal truth.

I think if one wanted to confuse the teachings of Jesus, then it would be quite easy. But if you approach it with a genuine desire to understand what Goodness meant when He says to follow Him means to hate your family and even your own life, then you can arrive at some pretty profound truths. (For example, to follow Christ means to die to self. Life is found in death. Your family, in that culture, represented one of your strongest ties to this current temporal life. Removing that tie, in order to follow Christ, meant that your allegiance is firstly to God, rather than to your family or yourself. Only in this way can one experience the real life, discover your real self, and potentially love your family far more than ever before. God is love, as the scriptures say, and making your highest allegience to Love is hardly likely to be bad for your family in the context of eternity.) Of course, these truths will be hidden from someone who is wanting the Bible look like a mess so that he is free of the obligation to believe it (and perhaps obey it--how terrifying!).

For example, when Jesus talks about how it is better to cut off your hand that causes you to sin than to enter hell with both hands, He is talking in a very deep way about our lives. I have no hesitation in saying that we should take him literally--to literally cut off my hand if it causes me to sin. However, I also accept that He was intelligent enough to understand that we are also intelligent enough to know that our hands are not what causes us to sin, but that it is the desires deep within, desires to rebel, to be in control of my own life, to set myself up as the final say of what is right and wrong, to seek my own selfish ends regardless of the plight of those around me, etc. etc.---these are the things that have to be cut off, removed from my life, put to death. This I have understood even from a small child, as soon as I was old enough to read the Bible for myself. I didn't need a PhD to get to that conclusion.

Many of the teachings in the Bible were directed to people of different cultures and times, but the truths in them are still true for all people, and these truths are to teach us how to know God personally, the way He made us to be. We may not understand them all, or even a fraction of them, but when we obey what we do understand, we are given more understanding, more of that 'sense' of what it means to know God and understand what He is trying to communicate through the Bible.

You are automatically making the assumption that God is required for morality; thus, your argument is circular. What you mean to say is that without God as an intermediary there is no way that human beings can know what morality is, and thus if there is no God humans seem to have to "make morality up." This is wrong. Morality can exist independently of God, and, indeed, must, or you end up with seemingly absurd consequences, which I shall demonstrate later if you require.

Did you actually read the website I sent you. The point is that in order for there to be a perfect morality, logically you need a perfect author of said morality. The reason being (as so many people are keen to point out with the Bible) is that anything written by a human can ultimately be said to be flawed as humans are fallable. The only way for it to be perfect is for it to be God inspired and the only way for it to be God inspired is for there to be a God.

If this turns into another 100+ page thread...

Hello.
Yeah, like Heikoku's "Come n'get me, pseudo-christians" thread!!!!!!
Woof!

*shakes fist, accidentally strikes self ... not enough to REALLY hurt, enough to humiliate though*

Did you actually read the website I sent you. The point is that in order for there to be a perfect morality, logically you need a perfect author of said morality. The reason being (as so many people are keen to point out with the Bible) is that anything written by a human can ultimately be said to be flawed as humans are fallable. The only way for it to be perfect is for it to be God inspired and the only way for it to be God inspired is for there to be a God.
And that assumes there is objective or perfect morality

Did you actually read the website I sent you. The point is that in order for there to be a perfect morality, logically you need a perfect author of said morality. False. If one follows the logic presented there, the creator needs a perfect creator, and the creator of that creator requires a perfect creator, etc. If a being can be perfect on its own without being created by something perfect, other metaphysical entities can as well. The reason being (as so many people are keen to point out with the Bible) is that anything written by a human can ultimately be said to be flawed as humans are fallable. The only way for it to be perfect is for it to be God inspired and the only way for it to be God inspired is for there to be a God.
Bollocks. First, that assumes that a perfect morallity must be accessable to humans if it exists. Second, it assumes that morallity without god is derived from man. Third, it assumes that all human products need be flawed.

The first is wrong, as a metaphysical entity could exist without humans having knowledge of or access to it. The second is wrong, the platonic form "good" being a theory in which "good" is not created by a divine entity but simply is. The third is wrong as not all things used by humans are flawed. Mathematics being a case and point. If there is a real absolute good there is nothing that says humans cannot find it as is.

Christianity is built on faulty logic !

Christianity is built on Love. And Love has no logic.





Now excuse me, I have to get back to my pictures of bunnies and kittens.

Methinks this thread is on par with Heikoku's "Come n'get me, pseudo-christians" thread.
*bows*

(Not enough time to read it all the way through yet .... *BUMP*)

In the New Testament of Christian Bible, a provocative and most serious challenge is laid on the whole of the Christianity. Since it bears directly on our subject, we will quote it: "...if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God ..
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (I Cor 15:14, 15, & 17
In the New Testament there is a warning given to all who would build a house. Namely, before you lay the foundation, find out what the foundation itself will rest on - solid rock, or sand? The reason is obvious...
or said another way; "You need to stand under the foundation to get a true under-standing!"

Let's closely examine the original, conceptual foundations of the faith, and then decide "...if Christ be not risen. " But in order to do that, we must go back, not 2,000 years to the birth of Christ, but 8 to 10,000 years to the birth of modern man. For when one seeks to establish foundations, one must begin at the beginning.

Many thousands of years ago in what we refer to as the the "primordial world" of the ancients, human life was a far different experience to that which we enjoy today. While it is true that we have less documentation on that prehistoric world than we have on our own age, ample enough is known from the ancient writings to paint a rather clear picture of our primitive ancestry. If we have learned anything at all, it is this: The more we change, the more we stay the same. And nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the history of man's quest for "God", and the ancient religion we still keep holy today.

According to the best understanding we have gleaned from the available records, life for our ancient forefathers was a mixture of wonder and fear.Each day, just finding food for one's family without becoming a meal yourself for the roaming predatory animals, was a life and death struggle. (If you have ever ventured out on a cold night with insufficient clothing, and without friend or family near, you could quickly see how fearful the dark, cold primordial nights could be) And then came winter!

It was from these meager, distressful conditions of the human race that our long history of the search for God and meaning has come. Any evolution, at it's most accelerated rate, is always agonisingly slow. But from the beginning, man's' profound questions demanded answers. When no clear answers were forthcoming from the universe, man turned inward, and developed his own. Keep in mind that all the theological teachings of the Western World were developed in the Northern Hemisphere. The study of this subject is properly called
- "Astro-Theology" or, "The Worship of the Heavens".

This is the first, original, and therefore the oldest, and most respected story on Earth! It did not take ancient man very long to decide that in this world the single greatest enemy to be feared was the darkness of night, and all the unknown dangers that came with it. Simply stated, man's first enemy was darkness.


Understanding this one fact alone, people can readily see why the greatest and most trustworthy friend the human race could ever have was by far, heaven's greatest gift to the world ... that Glorious Rising Orb of Day ...
the SUN


With this simple truth understood, we can now begin to unravel an ancient and wonderful story.
Today, as in all mankinds' history, it has once again been told anew.

Modern-day Christianity has often belittled our ancient ancestors who are not here to defend themselves.
They falsely accuse that they were nothing more than ignorant worshippers of the sun. Therefore we can, with assurance, summarily dismiss thousands of years of human spirituality as ignominious myth, believed by well-meaning, but gullible primitives. Too much of this kind of spiritual arrogance and religious pride has continued without challenge. The time has come to set matters straight.

First. no people of the ancient world believed the "Sun" to be "God". That belongs in the "disinformation file".

In point of fact, every Ancient culture and nation on Earth have all used the Sun as the most logically appropriate symbol to represent the Glory of the unseen Creator of the heavens. Here it is important to remember two points.

First, with the exception of Japan, the ancient world mythologies always understood the Sun to be masculine in qualities, and the moon feminine. Second, the English language is derived from the German. In the Germanic, the word 'Sun' is spelled 'Sonne'. The two words can (and have been) used interchangeably.

Old Testament:
"The heavens are declaring the Glory of God." (PS.19: 1)

New Testament:
"Jesus is the Glory of God." (2 Cor 4:6)

Old Testament:
"The SUN of Righteousness will arise with healings in His wings." (Mal 4:2)

New Testament:
"God's Son/Sun...he is risen!" (Matt 4:16)
Saying. "How, often I wanted to gather you under my wing. "


The "Ancient Story" went something like this....

The ancient peoples reasoned that no one on Earth could ever lay claim of ownership to the Great Orb of Day. It must belong to the unseen Creator of the Universe. It was, figuratively speaking, not man's, but "GOD'S SUN". Truly, "God's Sun/Son was...
THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.

As stated before, in the dark cold of night man realised his utter vulnerability to the elements. Each night, mankind (white race) was forced to wait for the " Risen Sun" to chase away the physical and mental insecurity brought on by the darkness.
So just as small fire brought limited light into man's own little world of darkness, likewise the "Great Fire of Day" served the whole Earth with its heavenly presence.
For this reason, it was said at Deut 4:24, and Heb 12:29 that the God of the Bible was a "Consuming Fire" in heaven. And so He is!

It was accepted by all that man was bound to a life on Earth, but the sky was God the Father's abode - His dwelling place. Naturally, God's Son/Sun would also reside with his Father " up in HEAVEN".


Ancient man saw in his male offspring his own image and likeness, and his own existence as a father was proved by the person of his son. It was assumed that God's 'Sun was but a visible representative of the unseen Creator in heaven. So it was said, "When you have seen the Sun, you have seen the Father ". or "The Father is glorified in his Sun".


Ancient man had no problem understanding that all life on Earth depended directly on life-giving energy from the Sun. Consequently, all life was lost without the Sun. It followed that God's 'Sun' was nothing less than "Our very Saviour".
If you don't think so, wait 'till it don't come up!

Since life is energy, and energy from the Sun gave life, and we sustained our very existence by taking energy in from our food (which came directly from God's Sun), the Sun must give up its life supporting energy so that we may continue to live.
"God's Sun gives his life for us to live."

While it was plainly true that our life came from and was sustained each day by "Our Saviour... God's Sun", it was and would be true only as long as the Sun would return each morning. Our hope of salvation would be secure only in a "RISEN saviour". For if he did not rise from his grave of darkness,all would be lost. All the world waited patiently for His 'imminent return". The Divine Father would never leave us at the mercy of this world of darkness. His Heavenly promise concerning his Sun was surely that..."He would come again"...to light our path, and save those lost in the darkness ... And He still does...
every morning about 5:30 am.

Logically, even if man himself died, as long as the Sun comes up each day, life on Earth will continue forever. Therefore, it was said in the ancient texts that everlasting life was "the gift" that the Father gives through his Sun. For..."God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten SUN that we may have life everlasting"....on Earth!
Not for you personally - but ON EARTH... everlasting life!

Since evil and harm lurked at every turn in the fearful dark of night, all evil or harmful deeds were naturally, the..."works of darkness."

With the return of the Sun each morning, man felt more secure in his world and therefore, was at peace. Therefore, God's 'Sun' was with his warm rays of life and hope...The Great "Prince of Peace".

And of course the reverse was equally true. The dark evil of night was ruled by none other than..."Prince of Darkness"... The EVIL / DEVIL.

Our English words 'Good' and 'God' we get from the German word 'Goth' as in 'Gothic'. Now we see God is Good, and Devil is Evil


It was only a short step to see "The Light of God's Sun" equated with the light of truth - and evil equated with darkness. From then on, it was simple to understand...
"LIGHT (WHITE)was GOOD - DARK (BLACK)was BAD."
The beginnings of WHITE SUPREMACY.
That being true, then the Great Orb of Day (God's Sun) could rightly say of itself,
"I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD, and no man comes to the Father except through me", or one comes to God Only by the Light of Truth.

We should all "give thanks" to the Father for sending us His "Sun". For the peace and tranquillity he brings to our life is even called 'Solace' - from "Solar" = Sun.
We now have before us two (2) cosmic brothers - one very good, and one very evil. One brings the "truth to light" with the "light of truth". The other is the opposite, or in opposition to the light - "The Opposer"...
Prince of this World of Darkness-
The "Devil".

It is at this point that we come to Egypt. More than 3,000 years before Christianity began, the early morning "Sun/ Saviour" was pictured in Egypt as the "New Born Babe". The infant saviour's name was "HORUS".

The early morning Sun or "New Born Babe", was pictured in two ways.
A) The Dove - Bringer of Peace
B) The Hawk - God of War (American Eagle)
At daybreak. this wonderful, newborn child, God's 'Sun', is ... 'Born Again' Horus is Risen. Even today, when the Sun comes up, we see it on the "Horus-Risen", or "Horizon". His life was also divided into 12 parts or steps across Heaven each day: 12 HORUS = 12 HOURS. This is the origin of the modern " 12 Step Program". Horus is the (new-born) Sun, or the Bringer of the Light. In Latin, Light Bringer is Lucis, or Lucifer, or Luke. ( Luke Skywalker?)


But now, what about the evil brother of God's Sun, that old rascally "Prince of Darkness" himself? In the Egyptian, he was called "SET". We are told in the Bible that when God's Sun died, He left the world in the hands of the Evil Prince of Darkness. This evil prince took over the world at "SUN-SET".
It was generally observed that 'God's Sun' could be depended upon to return in the same manner that he left, namely, "On a Cloud""..and that "Every eye will see Him"" ... Every evening, go out and watch the Sun leave this world "on a cloud". And next morning, watch to see Him return on a cloud. And every eye will see him come again! ... Unless you're blind, deaf, and dumb!

Keep in mind 'God's Sun' symbolically represented the light of truth, but was condemned by His enemies who could not endure the light of truth in their life. The ancients taught that the very act of opposing or denying the light of truth to the point of killing it, happened in one's own mind! When we are confronted with the harsh realities of life, the light of truth, which we do not wish to face, and which runs counter to our views, such truth is judged in your mind, or judged "in the temple area" of your brain, and put to death in your head ! Therefore, 'God's Sun - The Truth and The Light - is put to death at "GOLGOTHA" , or "PLACE OF THE SKULL ", located somewhere between your ears! This putting to death of the light of truth in your mind is always accompanied by two thieves: Regret for the past and Fear of the future.

And of course God's 'Sun' goes to His death wearing a "corona" - Latin for "Crown of Thorns" . Remember the Statue of Liberty? To this day, Kings still wear a round crown of thorns, symbolising the rays of the Sun!

God's 'Sun' brought His wonderful light to the world, and distributed it over 12 months. So it was said, God's 'Sun' had 12 companions, or helpers, that assisted His life-saving work. So it was, God's 'Sun' had 12 apostles (or months) that followed Him religiously through His life. Incidentally, now you know why the American jury system has 12 jurors who help bring the truth to light, with the "Light of Truth".

As far back as we can go into the ancient world, we find that all known cultures had a "Three-in-one" Triune God. The very first trinity was simply the three stages of the life of the Sun.


A) New Born Savior at dawn.

B) Mature, full-grown (The Most High) at 12 (High) noon.

C) Old and dying, at the end of day (going back to The Father).


All three were of course One Divinity - The Sun
three different phases, but one God!
The Trinity is truly a mystery...Like electricity, radio, TV, and jumbo-jets are all a mystery to the un-enlightened mind!

The Egyptians knew that the Sun was at its highest point in the sky (at high noon). At that point, one offered prayers to the "Most High" God! To the ancients, the sky was the abode, or heavenly temple, of the "Most High". Therefore, God's 'Sun' was doing His heavenly Father's work of enlightening all in the temple at 12 ...not 12 years old, but 12 noon!

The world of ancient man kept track of times and seasons by the movement of the Sun daily, monthly, and yearly. For this, the sundial and sun calendars were devised. Not only the daily movement of the Sun was tracked on the round dial, but also the whole year was charted on a round Sun calendar dial. Examples: Ancient Mexican, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Celtic, Aryan, etc. With this method, certain new concepts emerged in the mind of ancient man.

Since the Earth experienced 4 different seasons, all the same and equal (in time) each year, the round Sun calendar was divided into 4 equal parts. This is also why we have, in the Bible, only 4 Gospels. Of this point, there can be no doubt. The 4 Gospels represent the four 4 seasons which collectively tell the entire story of the life of God's 'Sun'. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. This is why the famous painting of "The Last Supper" pictures the 12 followers of the Sun in four groups (of three) ...
the seasons!

On the round surface of the yearly calendar, you can draw a straight line directly across the middle, cutting the circle in half... one end being the point of the winter solstice; the other end being the point of the summer solstice. Then you can draw another straight line (crossing the first one); one end of the new line being the spring equinox; the other end being the autumn equinox. You now have the starting points for each of the 4 seasons. This is referred to by all major encyclopedias and reference works, both ancient and modern, as "The Cross of the Zodiac". Thus, the life of God's 'Sun' is on "the Cross". This is why we see the round circle of the Sun on the crosses of Christian churches. The next time you pass a Christian church, look for the circle (God's Sun) on the cross.

The Sun, since the first day of summer, has each day been moving southward, and stops when it reaches its lowest point in the Northern Hemispheric sky (December 22nd - our winter solstice).

At this lowest point, the Sun stops its journey southward.
For three days, December 22nd, 23rd , and 24th, the Sun rises on the exact same latitudinal (declination) degree.

This is the only time in the year that the Sun actually stops its movement Northward or Southward in our sky. On the morning of December 25th the Sun moves one degree northward beginning its annual journey back to us in the Northern Hemisphere, ultimately bringing our spring. Anything steadily moving all year long that suddenly stops moving for three days was considered to have died. Therefore, God's Sun who was dead for three days, moves one-degree Northward on December 25th beginning its annual journey back to the Northern Hemisphere. The Sun is symbolically
....BORN AGAIN.
And to this day, His worshippers still celebrate His BIRTHDAY!.... Merry(mary) Christmas.(christmess)
Today we use expressions when someone dies. We say things like, "They Passed", or "They Passed On", or "They Passed Away". The ancients said "They Passed Over" (from one life to another), And so it was with the coming of spring, as God's Sun is "Resurrected" from the Death of Winter to His New Life (in spring). In the ancient world, long before the Hebrews ever existed, the celebration of spring was called "The Pass Over", The Sun, which was dead in winter, has
passed over to His new life in spring. This is the origin of the modern Pass Over celebration. This is why Christians also celebrate "The Resurrection", or His return, in spring with a "Sun Rise service"... He kept His Promise, and has returned to us with the Promise of New Life... "HAPPY EASTER-PASSOVER!"
The Coat of Arms carries the motto, "Workers of all Countries, Unite!" The hammer and sickle represent the spread of Communism. The rising sun is a symbol of the dawning of the "new day" of Communism.
"The direct descent of the essential program of the Esoteric Schools was entrusted to groups already well-conditioned for the work. The guilds, trade unions, and similar protective and benevolent Societies had been internally strengthened by the introduction of a new learning. The advancement of the plan required the enlargement of the boundaries of the philosophic overstate. A World Fraternity was needed, sustained by a deep and broad program of education according to the "method." Such a Fraternity could not immediately include all men, but it could unite the activities of certain kinds of men, regardless of their racial or religious beliefs or the nations in which they dwelt. These were the men of "towardness," those sons of tomorrow, whose symbol was...
a blazing sun rising over the mountains of the east."
"While it is difficult to trace the elements of a pattern never intended to be obvious, the broad shape of the design is dimly apparent.
" A recurrent mythic model for revolutionaries -early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin's time-was Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods (blackmen) for the use of mankind.(white race) The Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general modem belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light. But there was also the more pointed millennial assumption that, on the new day that was dawning, the sun would never set. Early during the French upheaval was born a "solar myth of the revolution," suggesting that the sun was rising on a new era in which darkness would vanish forever. This image became implanted "at a level of consciousness that simultaneously interpreted something real and produced a new reality."
The new reality they sought was radically secular and stridently simple. The ideal was not the balanced complexity of the new American federation, but the occult simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum.
" I have been convinced that we, as an Order, have come under the power of some very evil occult Order, profoundly versed in science both occult and otherwise, though not infallible, their methods being BLACK MAGIC , that is to say, electro-magnetic power, hypnotism and powerful suggestion.

We are convicesd that the (our) Order is being controlled by some...
Sun Order after the nature of the Illuminati, if not by that Order itself."

In the New Testament of Christian Bible, a provocative and most serious challenge is laid on the whole of the Christianity. Since it bears directly on our subject, we will quote it: "...if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God ..
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (I Cor 15:14, 15, & 17
In the New Testament there is a warning given to all who would build a house. Namely, before you lay the foundation, find out what the foundation itself will rest on - solid rock, or sand? The reason is obvious...
or said another way; "You need to stand under the foundation to get a true under-standing!"

Let's closely examine the original, conceptual foundations of the faith, and then decide "...if Christ be not risen. " But in order to do that, we must go back, not 2,000 years to the birth of Christ, but 8 to 10,000 years to the birth of modern man. For when one seeks to establish foundations, one must begin at the beginning.

Many thousands of years ago in what we refer to as the the "primordial world" of the ancients, human life was a far different experience to that which we enjoy today. While it is true that we have less documentation on that prehistoric world than we have on our own age, ample enough is known from the ancient writings to paint a rather clear picture of our primitive ancestry. If we have learned anything at all, it is this: The more we change, the more we stay the same. And nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the history of man's quest for "God", and the ancient religion we still keep holy today.

According to the best understanding we have gleaned from the available records, life for our ancient forefathers was a mixture of wonder and fear.Each day, just finding food for one's family without becoming a meal yourself for the roaming predatory animals, was a life and death struggle. (If you have ever ventured out on a cold night with insufficient clothing, and without friend or family near, you could quickly see how fearful the dark, cold primordial nights could be) And then came winter!

It was from these meager, distressful conditions of the human race that our long history of the search for God and meaning has come. Any evolution, at it's most accelerated rate, is always agonisingly slow. But from the beginning, man's' profound questions demanded answers. When no clear answers were forthcoming from the universe, man turned inward, and developed his own. Keep in mind that all the theological teachings of the Western World were developed in the Northern Hemisphere. The study of this subject is properly called
- "Astro-Theology" or, "The Worship of the Heavens".

This is the first, original, and therefore the oldest, and most respected story on Earth! It did not take ancient man very long to decide that in this world the single greatest enemy to be feared was the darkness of night, and all the unknown dangers that came with it. Simply stated, man's first enemy was darkness.


Understanding this one fact alone, people can readily see why the greatest and most trustworthy friend the human race could ever have was by far, heaven's greatest gift to the world ... that Glorious Rising Orb of Day ...
the SUN


With this simple truth understood, we can now begin to unravel an ancient and wonderful story.
Today, as in all mankinds' history, it has once again been told anew.

Modern-day Christianity has often belittled our ancient ancestors who are not here to defend themselves.
They falsely accuse that they were nothing more than ignorant worshippers of the sun. Therefore we can, with assurance, summarily dismiss thousands of years of human spirituality as ignominious myth, believed by well-meaning, but gullible primitives. Too much of this kind of spiritual arrogance and religious pride has continued without challenge. The time has come to set matters straight.

First. no people of the ancient world believed the "Sun" to be "God". That belongs in the "disinformation file".

In point of fact, every Ancient culture and nation on Earth have all used the Sun as the most logically appropriate symbol to represent the Glory of the unseen Creator of the heavens. Here it is important to remember two points.

First, with the exception of Japan, the ancient world mythologies always understood the Sun to be masculine in qualities, and the moon feminine. Second, the English language is derived from the German. In the Germanic, the word 'Sun' is spelled 'Sonne'. The two words can (and have been) used interchangeably.

Old Testament:
"The heavens are declaring the Glory of God." (PS.19: 1)

New Testament:
"Jesus is the Glory of God." (2 Cor 4:6)

Old Testament:
"The SUN of Righteousness will arise with healings in His wings." (Mal 4:2)

New Testament:
"God's Son/Sun...he is risen!" (Matt 4:16)
Saying. "How, often I wanted to gather you under my wing. "


The "Ancient Story" went something like this....

The ancient peoples reasoned that no one on Earth could ever lay claim of ownership to the Great Orb of Day. It must belong to the unseen Creator of the Universe. It was, figuratively speaking, not man's, but "GOD'S SUN". Truly, "God's Sun/Son was...
THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.

As stated before, in the dark cold of night man realised his utter vulnerability to the elements. Each night, mankind (white race) was forced to wait for the " Risen Sun" to chase away the physical and mental insecurity brought on by the darkness.
So just as small fire brought limited light into man's own little world of darkness, likewise the "Great Fire of Day" served the whole Earth with its heavenly presence.
For this reason, it was said at Deut 4:24, and Heb 12:29 that the God of the Bible was a "Consuming Fire" in heaven. And so He is!

It was accepted by all that man was bound to a life on Earth, but the sky was God the Father's abode - His dwelling place. Naturally, God's Son/Sun would also reside with his Father " up in HEAVEN".


Ancient man saw in his male offspring his own image and likeness, and his own existence as a father was proved by the person of his son. It was assumed that God's 'Sun was but a visible representative of the unseen Creator in heaven. So it was said, "When you have seen the Sun, you have seen the Father ". or "The Father is glorified in his Sun".


Ancient man had no problem understanding that all life on Earth depended directly on life-giving energy from the Sun. Consequently, all life was lost without the Sun. It followed that God's 'Sun' was nothing less than "Our very Saviour".
If you don't think so, wait 'till it don't come up!

Since life is energy, and energy from the Sun gave life, and we sustained our very existence by taking energy in from our food (which came directly from God's Sun), the Sun must give up its life supporting energy so that we may continue to live.
"God's Sun gives his life for us to live."

While it was plainly true that our life came from and was sustained each day by "Our Saviour... God's Sun", it was and would be true only as long as the Sun would return each morning. Our hope of salvation would be secure only in a "RISEN saviour". For if he did not rise from his grave of darkness,all would be lost. All the world waited patiently for His 'imminent return". The Divine Father would never leave us at the mercy of this world of darkness. His Heavenly promise concerning his Sun was surely that..."He would come again"...to light our path, and save those lost in the darkness ... And He still does...
every morning about 5:30 am.

Logically, even if man himself died, as long as the Sun comes up each day, life on Earth will continue forever. Therefore, it was said in the ancient texts that everlasting life was "the gift" that the Father gives through his Sun. For..."God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten SUN that we may have life everlasting"....on Earth!
Not for you personally - but ON EARTH... everlasting life!

Since evil and harm lurked at every turn in the fearful dark of night, all evil or harmful deeds were naturally, the..."works of darkness."

With the return of the Sun each morning, man felt more secure in his world and therefore, was at peace. Therefore, God's 'Sun' was with his warm rays of life and hope...The Great "Prince of Peace".

And of course the reverse was equally true. The dark evil of night was ruled by none other than..."Prince of Darkness"... The EVIL / DEVIL.

Our English words 'Good' and 'God' we get from the German word 'Goth' as in 'Gothic'. Now we see God is Good, and Devil is Evil


It was only a short step to see "The Light of God's Sun" equated with the light of truth - and evil equated with darkness. From then on, it was simple to understand...
"LIGHT (WHITE)was GOOD - DARK (BLACK)was BAD."
The beginnings of WHITE SUPREMACY.
That being true, then the Great Orb of Day (God's Sun) could rightly say of itself,
"I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD, and no man comes to the Father except through me", or one comes to God Only by the Light of Truth.

We should all "give thanks" to the Father for sending us His "Sun". For the peace and tranquillity he brings to our life is even called 'Solace' - from "Solar" = Sun.
We now have before us two (2) cosmic brothers - one very good, and one very evil. One brings the "truth to light" with the "light of truth". The other is the opposite, or in opposition to the light - "The Opposer"...
Prince of this World of Darkness-
The "Devil".

It is at this point that we come to Egypt. More than 3,000 years before Christianity began, the early morning "Sun/ Saviour" was pictured in Egypt as the "New Born Babe". The infant saviour's name was "HORUS".

The early morning Sun or "New Born Babe", was pictured in two ways.
A) The Dove - Bringer of Peace
B) The Hawk - God of War (American Eagle)
At daybreak. this wonderful, newborn child, God's 'Sun', is ... 'Born Again' Horus is Risen. Even today, when the Sun comes up, we see it on the "Horus-Risen", or "Horizon". His life was also divided into 12 parts or steps across Heaven each day: 12 HORUS = 12 HOURS. This is the origin of the modern " 12 Step Program". Horus is the (new-born) Sun, or the Bringer of the Light. In Latin, Light Bringer is Lucis, or Lucifer, or Luke. ( Luke Skywalker?)


But now, what about the evil brother of God's Sun, that old rascally "Prince of Darkness" himself? In the Egyptian, he was called "SET". We are told in the Bible that when God's Sun died, He left the world in the hands of the Evil Prince of Darkness. This evil prince took over the world at "SUN-SET".
It was generally observed that 'God's Sun' could be depended upon to return in the same manner that he left, namely, "On a Cloud""..and that "Every eye will see Him"" ... Every evening, go out and watch the Sun leave this world "on a cloud". And next morning, watch to see Him return on a cloud. And every eye will see him come again! ... Unless you're blind, deaf, and dumb!

Keep in mind 'God's Sun' symbolically represented the light of truth, but was condemned by His enemies who could not endure the light of truth in their life. The ancients taught that the very act of opposing or denying the light of truth to the point of killing it, happened in one's own mind! When we are confronted with the harsh realities of life, the light of truth, which we do not wish to face, and which runs counter to our views, such truth is judged in your mind, or judged "in the temple area" of your brain, and put to death in your head ! Therefore, 'God's Sun - The Truth and The Light - is put to death at "GOLGOTHA" , or "PLACE OF THE SKULL ", located somewhere between your ears! This putting to death of the light of truth in your mind is always accompanied by two thieves: Regret for the past and Fear of the future.

And of course God's 'Sun' goes to His death wearing a "corona" - Latin for "Crown of Thorns" . Remember the Statue of Liberty? To this day, Kings still wear a round crown of thorns, symbolising the rays of the Sun!

God's 'Sun' brought His wonderful light to the world, and distributed it over 12 months. So it was said, God's 'Sun' had 12 companions, or helpers, that assisted His life-saving work. So it was, God's 'Sun' had 12 apostles (or months) that followed Him religiously through His life. Incidentally, now you know why the American jury system has 12 jurors who help bring the truth to light, with the "Light of Truth".

As far back as we can go into the ancient world, we find that all known cultures had a "Three-in-one" Triune God. The very first trinity was simply the three stages of the life of the Sun.


A) New Born Savior at dawn.

B) Mature, full-grown (The Most High) at 12 (High) noon.

C) Old and dying, at the end of day (going back to The Father).


All three were of course One Divinity - The Sun
three different phases, but one God!
The Trinity is truly a mystery...Like electricity, radio, TV, and jumbo-jets are all a mystery to the un-enlightened mind!

The Egyptians knew that the Sun was at its highest point in the sky (at high noon). At that point, one offered prayers to the "Most High" God! To the ancients, the sky was the abode, or heavenly temple, of the "Most High". Therefore, God's 'Sun' was doing His heavenly Father's work of enlightening all in the temple at 12 ...not 12 years old, but 12 noon!

The world of ancient man kept track of times and seasons by the movement of the Sun daily, monthly, and yearly. For this, the sundial and sun calendars were devised. Not only the daily movement of the Sun was tracked on the round dial, but also the whole year was charted on a round Sun calendar dial. Examples: Ancient Mexican, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Celtic, Aryan, etc. With this method, certain new concepts emerged in the mind of ancient man.

Since the Earth experienced 4 different seasons, all the same and equal (in time) each year, the round Sun calendar was divided into 4 equal parts. This is also why we have, in the Bible, only 4 Gospels. Of this point, there can be no doubt. The 4 Gospels represent the four 4 seasons which collectively tell the entire story of the life of God's 'Sun'. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. This is why the famous painting of "The Last Supper" pictures the 12 followers of the Sun in four groups (of three) ...
the seasons!

On the round surface of the yearly calendar, you can draw a straight line directly across the middle, cutting the circle in half... one end being the point of the winter solstice; the other end being the point of the summer solstice. Then you can draw another straight line (crossing the first one); one end of the new line being the spring equinox; the other end being the autumn equinox. You now have the starting points for each of the 4 seasons. This is referred to by all major encyclopedias and reference works, both ancient and modern, as "The Cross of the Zodiac". Thus, the life of God's 'Sun' is on "the Cross". This is why we see the round circle of the Sun on the crosses of Christian churches. The next time you pass a Christian church, look for the circle (God's Sun) on the cross.

The Sun, since the first day of summer, has each day been moving southward, and stops when it reaches its lowest point in the Northern Hemispheric sky (December 22nd - our winter solstice).

At this lowest point, the Sun stops its journey southward.
For three days, December 22nd, 23rd , and 24th, the Sun rises on the exact same latitudinal (declination) degree.

This is the only time in the year that the Sun actually stops its movement Northward or Southward in our sky. On the morning of December 25th the Sun moves one degree northward beginning its annual journey back to us in the Northern Hemisphere, ultimately bringing our spring. Anything steadily moving all year long that suddenly stops moving for three days was considered to have died. Therefore, God's Sun who was dead for three days, moves one-degree Northward on December 25th beginning its annual journey back to the Northern Hemisphere. The Sun is symbolically
....BORN AGAIN.
And to this day, His worshippers still celebrate His BIRTHDAY!.... Merry(mary) Christmas.(christmess)
Today we use expressions when someone dies. We say things like, "They Passed", or "They Passed On", or "They Passed Away". The ancients said "They Passed Over" (from one life to another), And so it was with the coming of spring, as God's Sun is "Resurrected" from the Death of Winter to His New Life (in spring). In the ancient world, long before the Hebrews ever existed, the celebration of spring was called "The Pass Over", The Sun, which was dead in winter, has
passed over to His new life in spring. This is the origin of the modern Pass Over celebration. This is why Christians also celebrate "The Resurrection", or His return, in spring with a "Sun Rise service"... He kept His Promise, and has returned to us with the Promise of New Life... "HAPPY EASTER-PASSOVER!"
The Coat of Arms carries the motto, "Workers of all Countries, Unite!" The hammer and sickle represent the spread of Communism. The rising sun is a symbol of the dawning of the "new day" of Communism.
"The direct descent of the essential program of the Esoteric Schools was entrusted to groups already well-conditioned for the work. The guilds, trade unions, and similar protective and benevolent Societies had been internally strengthened by the introduction of a new learning. The advancement of the plan required the enlargement of the boundaries of the philosophic overstate. A World Fraternity was needed, sustained by a deep and broad program of education according to the "method." Such a Fraternity could not immediately include all men, but it could unite the activities of certain kinds of men, regardless of their racial or religious beliefs or the nations in which they dwelt. These were the men of "towardness," those sons of tomorrow, whose symbol was...
a blazing sun rising over the mountains of the east."
"While it is difficult to trace the elements of a pattern never intended to be obvious, the broad shape of the design is dimly apparent.
" A recurrent mythic model for revolutionaries -early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin's time-was Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods (blackmen) for the use of mankind.(white race) The Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general modem belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light. But there was also the more pointed millennial assumption that, on the new day that was dawning, the sun would never set. Early during the French upheaval was born a "solar myth of the revolution," suggesting that the sun was rising on a new era in which darkness would vanish forever. This image became implanted "at a level of consciousness that simultaneously interpreted something real and produced a new reality."
The new reality they sought was radically secular and stridently simple. The ideal was not the balanced complexity of the new American federation, but the occult simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum.
" I have been convinced that we, as an Order, have come under the power of some very evil occult Order, profoundly versed in science both occult and otherwise, though not infallible, their methods being BLACK MAGIC , that is to say, electro-magnetic power, hypnotism and powerful suggestion.

We are convicesd that the (our) Order is being controlled by some...
Sun Order after the nature of the Illuminati, if not by that Order itself."



You make a good fiction writer :)

Whats Wrong Did I Hit A Nerve?

In the New Testament of Christian Bible, a provocative and most serious challenge is laid on the whole of the Christianity. Since it bears directly on our subject, we will quote it: "...if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God ..
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (I Cor 15:14, 15, & 17
In the New Testament there is a warning given to all who would build a house. Namely, before you lay the foundation, find out what the foundation itself will rest on - solid rock, or sand? The reason is obvious...
or said another way; "You need to stand under the foundation to get a true under-standing!"

Let's closely examine the original, conceptual foundations of the faith, and then decide "...if Christ be not risen. " But in order to do that, we must go back, not 2,000 years to the birth of Christ, but 8 to 10,000 years to the birth of modern man. For when one seeks to establish foundations, one must begin at the beginning.

Many thousands of years ago in what we refer to as the the "primordial world" of the ancients, human life was a far different experience to that which we enjoy today. While it is true that we have less documentation on that prehistoric world than we have on our own age, ample enough is known from the ancient writings to paint a rather clear picture of our primitive ancestry. If we have learned anything at all, it is this: The more we change, the more we stay the same. And nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the history of man's quest for "God", and the ancient religion we still keep holy today.

According to the best understanding we have gleaned from the available records, life for our ancient forefathers was a mixture of wonder and fear.Each day, just finding food for one's family without becoming a meal yourself for the roaming predatory animals, was a life and death struggle. (If you have ever ventured out on a cold night with insufficient clothing, and without friend or family near, you could quickly see how fearful the dark, cold primordial nights could be) And then came winter!

It was from these meager, distressful conditions of the human race that our long history of the search for God and meaning has come. Any evolution, at it's most accelerated rate, is always agonisingly slow. But from the beginning, man's' profound questions demanded answers. When no clear answers were forthcoming from the universe, man turned inward, and developed his own. Keep in mind that all the theological teachings of the Western World were developed in the Northern Hemisphere. The study of this subject is properly called
- "Astro-Theology" or, "The Worship of the Heavens".

This is the first, original, and therefore the oldest, and most respected story on Earth! It did not take ancient man very long to decide that in this world the single greatest enemy to be feared was the darkness of night, and all the unknown dangers that came with it. Simply stated, man's first enemy was darkness.


Understanding this one fact alone, people can readily see why the greatest and most trustworthy friend the human race could ever have was by far, heaven's greatest gift to the world ... that Glorious Rising Orb of Day ...
the SUN


With this simple truth understood, we can now begin to unravel an ancient and wonderful story.
Today, as in all mankinds' history, it has once again been told anew.

Modern-day Christianity has often belittled our ancient ancestors who are not here to defend themselves.
They falsely accuse that they were nothing more than ignorant worshippers of the sun. Therefore we can, with assurance, summarily dismiss thousands of years of human spirituality as ignominious myth, believed by well-meaning, but gullible primitives. Too much of this kind of spiritual arrogance and religious pride has continued without challenge. The time has come to set matters straight.

First. no people of the ancient world believed the "Sun" to be "God". That belongs in the "disinformation file".

In point of fact, every Ancient culture and nation on Earth have all used the Sun as the most logically appropriate symbol to represent the Glory of the unseen Creator of the heavens. Here it is important to remember two points.

First, with the exception of Japan, the ancient world mythologies always understood the Sun to be masculine in qualities, and the moon feminine. Second, the English language is derived from the German. In the Germanic, the word 'Sun' is spelled 'Sonne'. The two words can (and have been) used interchangeably.

Old Testament:
"The heavens are declaring the Glory of God." (PS.19: 1)

New Testament:
"Jesus is the Glory of God." (2 Cor 4:6)

Old Testament:
"The SUN of Righteousness will arise with healings in His wings." (Mal 4:2)

New Testament:
"God's Son/Sun...he is risen!" (Matt 4:16)
Saying. "How, often I wanted to gather you under my wing. "


The "Ancient Story" went something like this....

The ancient peoples reasoned that no one on Earth could ever lay claim of ownership to the Great Orb of Day. It must belong to the unseen Creator of the Universe. It was, figuratively speaking, not man's, but "GOD'S SUN". Truly, "God's Sun/Son was...
THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.

As stated before, in the dark cold of night man realised his utter vulnerability to the elements. Each night, mankind (white race) was forced to wait for the " Risen Sun" to chase away the physical and mental insecurity brought on by the darkness.
So just as small fire brought limited light into man's own little world of darkness, likewise the "Great Fire of Day" served the whole Earth with its heavenly presence.
For this reason, it was said at Deut 4:24, and Heb 12:29 that the God of the Bible was a "Consuming Fire" in heaven. And so He is!

It was accepted by all that man was bound to a life on Earth, but the sky was God the Father's abode - His dwelling place. Naturally, God's Son/Sun would also reside with his Father " up in HEAVEN".


Ancient man saw in his male offspring his own image and likeness, and his own existence as a father was proved by the person of his son. It was assumed that God's 'Sun was but a visible representative of the unseen Creator in heaven. So it was said, "When you have seen the Sun, you have seen the Father ". or "The Father is glorified in his Sun".


Ancient man had no problem understanding that all life on Earth depended directly on life-giving energy from the Sun. Consequently, all life was lost without the Sun. It followed that God's 'Sun' was nothing less than "Our very Saviour".
If you don't think so, wait 'till it don't come up!

Since life is energy, and energy from the Sun gave life, and we sustained our very existence by taking energy in from our food (which came directly from God's Sun), the Sun must give up its life supporting energy so that we may continue to live.
"God's Sun gives his life for us to live."

While it was plainly true that our life came from and was sustained each day by "Our Saviour... God's Sun", it was and would be true only as long as the Sun would return each morning. Our hope of salvation would be secure only in a "RISEN saviour". For if he did not rise from his grave of darkness,all would be lost. All the world waited patiently for His 'imminent return". The Divine Father would never leave us at the mercy of this world of darkness. His Heavenly promise concerning his Sun was surely that..."He would come again"...to light our path, and save those lost in the darkness ... And He still does...
every morning about 5:30 am.

Logically, even if man himself died, as long as the Sun comes up each day, life on Earth will continue forever. Therefore, it was said in the ancient texts that everlasting life was "the gift" that the Father gives through his Sun. For..."God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten SUN that we may have life everlasting"....on Earth!
Not for you personally - but ON EARTH... everlasting life!

Since evil and harm lurked at every turn in the fearful dark of night, all evil or harmful deeds were naturally, the..."works of darkness."

With the return of the Sun each morning, man felt more secure in his world and therefore, was at peace. Therefore, God's 'Sun' was with his warm rays of life and hope...The Great "Prince of Peace".

And of course the reverse was equally true. The dark evil of night was ruled by none other than..."Prince of Darkness"... The EVIL / DEVIL.

Our English words 'Good' and 'God' we get from the German word 'Goth' as in 'Gothic'. Now we see God is Good, and Devil is Evil


It was only a short step to see "The Light of God's Sun" equated with the light of truth - and evil equated with darkness. From then on, it was simple to understand...
"LIGHT (WHITE)was GOOD - DARK (BLACK)was BAD."
The beginnings of WHITE SUPREMACY.
That being true, then the Great Orb of Day (God's Sun) could rightly say of itself,
"I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD, and no man comes to the Father except through me", or one comes to God Only by the Light of Truth.

We should all "give thanks" to the Father for sending us His "Sun". For the peace and tranquillity he brings to our life is even called 'Solace' - from "Solar" = Sun.
We now have before us two (2) cosmic brothers - one very good, and one very evil. One brings the "truth to light" with the "light of truth". The other is the opposite, or in opposition to the light - "The Opposer"...
Prince of this World of Darkness-
The "Devil".

It is at this point that we come to Egypt. More than 3,000 years before Christianity began, the early morning "Sun/ Saviour" was pictured in Egypt as the "New Born Babe". The infant saviour's name was "HORUS".

The early morning Sun or "New Born Babe", was pictured in two ways.
A) The Dove - Bringer of Peace
B) The Hawk - God of War (American Eagle)
At daybreak. this wonderful, newborn child, God's 'Sun', is ... 'Born Again' Horus is Risen. Even today, when the Sun comes up, we see it on the "Horus-Risen", or "Horizon". His life was also divided into 12 parts or steps across Heaven each day: 12 HORUS = 12 HOURS. This is the origin of the modern " 12 Step Program". Horus is the (new-born) Sun, or the Bringer of the Light. In Latin, Light Bringer is Lucis, or Lucifer, or Luke. ( Luke Skywalker?)


But now, what about the evil brother of God's Sun, that old rascally "Prince of Darkness" himself? In the Egyptian, he was called "SET". We are told in the Bible that when God's Sun died, He left the world in the hands of the Evil Prince of Darkness. This evil prince took over the world at "SUN-SET".
It was generally observed that 'God's Sun' could be depended upon to return in the same manner that he left, namely, "On a Cloud""..and that "Every eye will see Him"" ... Every evening, go out and watch the Sun leave this world "on a cloud". And next morning, watch to see Him return on a cloud. And every eye will see him come again! ... Unless you're blind, deaf, and dumb!

Keep in mind 'God's Sun' symbolically represented the light of truth, but was condemned by His enemies who could not endure the light of truth in their life. The ancients taught that the very act of opposing or denying the light of truth to the point of killing it, happened in one's own mind! When we are confronted with the harsh realities of life, the light of truth, which we do not wish to face, and which runs counter to our views, such truth is judged in your mind, or judged "in the temple area" of your brain, and put to death in your head ! Therefore, 'God's Sun - The Truth and The Light - is put to death at "GOLGOTHA" , or "PLACE OF THE SKULL ", located somewhere between your ears! This putting to death of the light of truth in your mind is always accompanied by two thieves: Regret for the past and Fear of the future.

And of course God's 'Sun' goes to His death wearing a "corona" - Latin for "Crown of Thorns" . Remember the Statue of Liberty? To this day, Kings still wear a round crown of thorns, symbolising the rays of the Sun!

God's 'Sun' brought His wonderful light to the world, and distributed it over 12 months. So it was said, God's 'Sun' had 12 companions, or helpers, that assisted His life-saving work. So it was, God's 'Sun' had 12 apostles (or months) that followed Him religiously through His life. Incidentally, now you know why the American jury system has 12 jurors who help bring the truth to light, with the "Light of Truth".

As far back as we can go into the ancient world, we find that all known cultures had a "Three-in-one" Triune God. The very first trinity was simply the three stages of the life of the Sun.


A) New Born Savior at dawn.

B) Mature, full-grown (The Most High) at 12 (High) noon.

C) Old and dying, at the end of day (going back to The Father).


All three were of course One Divinity - The Sun
three different phases, but one God!
The Trinity is truly a mystery...Like electricity, radio, TV, and jumbo-jets are all a mystery to the un-enlightened mind!

The Egyptians knew that the Sun was at its highest point in the sky (at high noon). At that point, one offered prayers to the "Most High" God! To the ancients, the sky was the abode, or heavenly temple, of the "Most High". Therefore, God's 'Sun' was doing His heavenly Father's work of enlightening all in the temple at 12 ...not 12 years old, but 12 noon!

The world of ancient man kept track of times and seasons by the movement of the Sun daily, monthly, and yearly. For this, the sundial and sun calendars were devised. Not only the daily movement of the Sun was tracked on the round dial, but also the whole year was charted on a round Sun calendar dial. Examples: Ancient Mexican, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Celtic, Aryan, etc. With this method, certain new concepts emerged in the mind of ancient man.

Since the Earth experienced 4 different seasons, all the same and equal (in time) each year, the round Sun calendar was divided into 4 equal parts. This is also why we have, in the Bible, only 4 Gospels. Of this point, there can be no doubt. The 4 Gospels represent the four 4 seasons which collectively tell the entire story of the life of God's 'Sun'. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. This is why the famous painting of "The Last Supper" pictures the 12 followers of the Sun in four groups (of three) ...
the seasons!

On the round surface of the yearly calendar, you can draw a straight line directly across the middle, cutting the circle in half... one end being the point of the winter solstice; the other end being the point of the summer solstice. Then you can draw another straight line (crossing the first one); one end of the new line being the spring equinox; the other end being the autumn equinox. You now have the starting points for each of the 4 seasons. This is referred to by all major encyclopedias and reference works, both ancient and modern, as "The Cross of the Zodiac". Thus, the life of God's 'Sun' is on "the Cross". This is why we see the round circle of the Sun on the crosses of Christian churches. The next time you pass a Christian church, look for the circle (God's Sun) on the cross.

The Sun, since the first day of summer, has each day been moving southward, and stops when it reaches its lowest point in the Northern Hemispheric sky (December 22nd - our winter solstice).

At this lowest point, the Sun stops its journey southward.
For three days, December 22nd, 23rd , and 24th, the Sun rises on the exact same latitudinal (declination) degree.

This is the only time in the year that the Sun actually stops its movement Northward or Southward in our sky. On the morning of December 25th the Sun moves one degree northward beginning its annual journey back to us in the Northern Hemisphere, ultimately bringing our spring. Anything steadily moving all year long that suddenly stops moving for three days was considered to have died. Therefore, God's Sun who was dead for three days, moves one-degree Northward on December 25th beginning its annual journey back to the Northern Hemisphere. The Sun is symbolically
....BORN AGAIN.
And to this day, His worshippers still celebrate His BIRTHDAY!.... Merry(mary) Christmas.(christmess)
Today we use expressions when someone dies. We say things like, "They Passed", or "They Passed On", or "They Passed Away". The ancients said "They Passed Over" (from one life to another), And so it was with the coming of spring, as God's Sun is "Resurrected" from the Death of Winter to His New Life (in spring). In the ancient world, long before the Hebrews ever existed, the celebration of spring was called "The Pass Over", The Sun, which was dead in winter, has
passed over to His new life in spring. This is the origin of the modern Pass Over celebration. This is why Christians also celebrate "The Resurrection", or His return, in spring with a "Sun Rise service"... He kept His Promise, and has returned to us with the Promise of New Life... "HAPPY EASTER-PASSOVER!"
The Coat of Arms carries the motto, "Workers of all Countries, Unite!" The hammer and sickle represent the spread of Communism. The rising sun is a symbol of the dawning of the "new day" of Communism.
"The direct descent of the essential program of the Esoteric Schools was entrusted to groups already well-conditioned for the work. The guilds, trade unions, and similar protective and benevolent Societies had been internally strengthened by the introduction of a new learning. The advancement of the plan required the enlargement of the boundaries of the philosophic overstate. A World Fraternity was needed, sustained by a deep and broad program of education according to the "method." Such a Fraternity could not immediately include all men, but it could unite the activities of certain kinds of men, regardless of their racial or religious beliefs or the nations in which they dwelt. These were the men of "towardness," those sons of tomorrow, whose symbol was...
a blazing sun rising over the mountains of the east."
"While it is difficult to trace the elements of a pattern never intended to be obvious, the broad shape of the design is dimly apparent.
" A recurrent mythic model for revolutionaries -early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin's time-was Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods (blackmen) for the use of mankind.(white race) The Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general modem belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light. But there was also the more pointed millennial assumption that, on the new day that was dawning, the sun would never set. Early during the French upheaval was born a "solar myth of the revolution," suggesting that the sun was rising on a new era in which darkness would vanish forever. This image became implanted "at a level of consciousness that simultaneously interpreted something real and produced a new reality."
The new reality they sought was radically secular and stridently simple. The ideal was not the balanced complexity of the new American federation, but the occult simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum.
" I have been convinced that we, as an Order, have come under the power of some very evil occult Order, profoundly versed in science both occult and otherwise, though not infallible, their methods being BLACK MAGIC , that is to say, electro-magnetic power, hypnotism and powerful suggestion.

We are convicesd that the (our) Order is being controlled by some...
Sun Order after the nature of the Illuminati, if not by that Order itself."

I'm all for critiquing Christianity, but couldn't you distill all that down to a few concise smart-ass remarks?

I'm all for critiquing Christianity, but couldn't you distill all that down to a few concise smart-ass remarks?



In order to attack Christianity, you can't hit any weak-points and cause it to collapse like a house of cards. We have an army of apologists that pretty much decimate any argument thrown at us, especially the short, lazy ones. It takes a pretty large theory like he has to make any headway.

Whats Wrong Did I Hit A Nerve?



On the contrary, you provided me with some entertainment. You should consider being a writer :)

In order to attack Christianity, you can't hit any weak-points and cause it to collapse like a house of cards. We have an army of apologists that pretty much decimate any argument thrown at us, especially the short, lazy ones. It takes a pretty large theory like he has to make any headway.

Please, Mackie whooped you with an argument that can be summed up in about five sentences.

Call me naive with your silly little accents but why must you think so deeply over religion? It's just something that help people along with their day. Why ruin it for them by dwelling deep into the philosphy of it and by doing so ruin its simplicity? This contradicts my additude towards conversations like this because I like to keep an open-mind and I also like hearing others' opinions. So don't take this as a naive comment or a closed-minded comment because either way I'm just walking in circles. :D

i actually read and understood all of it. That being said i have a question. How then would ye interpet this passage from John?

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

as for the sinning part that was earlier in this page.

i know it's in one of Paul's letters, but i can't find it at the moment, but it goes something like this.

What i do, i don't want to do, what i don't want to do i do.

You make a good fiction writer :)
So do the supposed appostles :p


But seriously with all the horrid arguments you have come up in your time and we have spent time covering that was the best comeback that you came up with?

Edit not trying to make it sound like all your arguments are bad … just that some of them hardly held together

Call me naive with your silly little accents but why must you think so deeply over religion? It's just something that help people along with their day. Why ruin it for them by dwelling deep into the philosphy of it and by doing so ruin its simplicity? This contradicts my additude towards conversations like this because I like to keep an open-mind and I also like hearing others' opinions. So don't take this as a naive comment or a closed-minded comment because either way I'm just walking in circles. :D
Because they use it as reasoning to impose themselves on our lives … it is very important to me that there be solid reasoning for forcing me to do something

As long as it is used to justify restricting my freedoms I will continue to critique it

The Proposed Position:

a. Atheists all shut the fuck up.
- Theists are not trying to 'shove it down your throat' or are 'mindless zombies'. You're just too much of an idiot to listen and take in and contemplate the opinion of theists.
b. Theists all shut the fuck up.
- Atheists have condemned themselves to an eternity in hell. They won't listen. They will never listen. Let them bask in their suicide.
c. Agnostics be stoned.
- Nuff' said.

c. Agnostics be stoned.


Okay... Pass it around.

The Proposed Position:

a. Atheists all shut the fuck up.
- Theists are not trying to 'shove it down your throat' or are 'mindless zombies'. You're just too much of an idiot to listen and take in and contemplate the opinion of theists.
b. Theists all shut the fuck up.
- Atheists have condemned themselves to an eternity in hell. They won't listen. They will never listen. Let them bask in their suicide.
c. Agnostics be stoned.
- Nuff' said.
Hardly they are using Christianity for reasoning for denying things like gay marriages and imposing their “morals” on the rest of us. They are absolutely trying to “shove it” down our throats

Okay... Pass it around.
Me next

Created beings do not have a choice. They are created within parameters set by the creator. If God is real...and we all know how that debate goes we must ask:

1. He provides free-will to his creations and will not tamper with that or cannot tamper with that design. In doing so he/she/it alters the choice of the created being.
(I liken the Hysenberg principle to this concept...ie if he sees what were doing he changes how we do it by just watching.)

2. He created us knowing exactly what we would do (Calvinism i think) and basically "just knows" what we will do before we do it. But doesnt alter or path.

3. He doesnt exsist and we need someone to blame when we cant bear the responsibility of our own actions.

Created beings do not have a choice. They are created within parameters set by the creator. If God is real...and we all know how that debate goes we must ask:

1. He provides free-will to his creations and will not tamper with that or cannot tamper with that design. In doing so he/she/it alters the choice of the created being.
(I liken the Hysenberg principle to this concept...ie if he sees what were doing he changes how we do it by just watching.)

2. He created us knowing exactly what we would do (Calvinism i think) and basically "just knows" what we will do before we do it. But doesnt alter or path.

3. He doesnt exsist and we need someone to blame when we cant bear the responsibility of our own actions.


Interesting … observation creating certainty therefore reducing our choices
Kind of like schrodinger's cat

(observing the cat reduces the duality of its existance/nonexistance ... but aplied to a framework)

Please, Mackie whooped you with an argument that can be summed up in about five sentences.


Show it to me.

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?
They are mutually exclusive. If you have free will, that means you have choice. It means you can choose between God and Hell. We inevitably choose hell.

But, he did, in fact make people capable of free will and not hell bound. They chose to be hell bound. Adam and Eve.

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?
Who says he didn't? Again, it's called free will. If he didn't allow Adam to since, or Lucifer, than he would have been forcing puppets to do his bidding. He's not the kind of God who wants puppets to do his bidding, he wants people who will love him because he's him, not because he told them too.

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?
Jumping on a grenade, taking a bullet, giving up your seat on the life boat...There's a difference between suicide and self-sacrifice. Suicide is a selfish attempt to dump all your problems on someone else. Self-sacrifice is taking other's problems upon yourself and dying for it.

Show it to me.
Show you the problem of evil again? Surely you know that one already.

Very well.

Let us assume that God exists, The bible says so, Is omnipotent, the bible says so, is omnibenevolent, Christianity says so at the very least, is omniscient, the bible again, and evil exists, once again, the bible. These traits are contradictory as if God is omnibenevolent he will not allow evil, if he is omniscient he will no of all evil, and if he is omnipotent Evil can serve no greater purpose than can be served by alternative means that God could use, plus he can remove all evil. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and exist at the same time evil does. Note any attempts to say that God is using evil or that evil serves a greater purpose would fly in the face of his supposed omnipotence because an omnipotent being would not be required to utilize anything it didn't want to to get the desired result.

Show you the problem of evil again? Surely you know that one already.

Very well.

Let us assume that God exists, The bible says so, Is omnipotent, the bible says so, is omnibenevolent, Christianity says so at the very least, is omniscient, the bible again, and evil exists, once again, the bible. These traits are contradictory as if God is omnibenevolent he will not allow evil, if he is omniscient he will no of all evil, and if he is omnipotent Evil can serve no greater purpose than can be served by alternative means that God could use, plus he can remove all evil. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and exist at the same time evil does. Note any attempts to say that God is using evil or that evil serves a greater purpose would fly in the face of his supposed omnipotence because an omnipotent being would not be required to utilize anything it didn't want to to get the desired result.


Oh that. It's explained on a regular basis. I didn't know anyone still used that outdated thing....


Research theodicy, your answers will lie therein.

in the moment b4 i die i will just accept gods love ask him 2 forgive me for all the bad things i did and all the years where i said he was a load of crap and go str8 2 heaven baby yeah!
and i'll prolly get there and wanna think this is fukd up but the stupid laws of heaven won't allow it and i'll wish that why oh why didn't i take the red pill

Oh that. It's explained on a regular basis. I didn't know anyone still used that outdated thing....


Research theodicy, your answers will lie therein.
I have, and the answers contained in theodicy are weak diversions at best.

I will grant the Maltheist solution works but I doubt you would like it.

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Leibniz%20-%20Theodicy.htm

Show you the problem of evil again? Surely you know that one already.

Very well.

Let us assume that God exists, The bible says so, Is omnipotent, the bible says so, is omnibenevolent, Christianity says so at the very least, is omniscient, the bible again, and evil exists, once again, the bible. These traits are contradictory as if God is omnibenevolent he will not allow evil, if he is omniscient he will no of all evil, and if he is omnipotent Evil can serve no greater purpose than can be served by alternative means that God could use, plus he can remove all evil. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and exist at the same time evil does. Note any attempts to say that God is using evil or that evil serves a greater purpose would fly in the face of his supposed omnipotence because an omnipotent being would not be required to utilize anything it didn't want to to get the desired result.

It's a decent argument only if Christianity claims that God is omnibenevolent. Is this the case? Cause the Bible would make a lot more sense if God was percieved as a sadist. It would explain that insane book of Job.

The whole concept of original sin has me a little bit confused.

Given that:

All people make mistakes in their life, but the great majority of people strive to do what is good/right overall.

The choice made by my (alleged) distant ancestor should not make me inherently evil.

A basic cornerstone of Christianity, Islam, etc., is that God is all-loving and all-wise, and that no soul is so evil as to be beyond redemption.

"It means you can choose between God and Hell. "


Thats a great choice...thanks!

Serve me or burn. :confused:

"It means you can choose between God and Hell. "


Thats a great choice...thanks!

Serve me or burn. :confused:

Why are you confused?

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Leibniz%20-%20Theodicy.htm

I am familiar with Leibniz and he covers only a very tiny portion of the full implications of Mackie's challenge.



It's a decent argument only if Christianity claims that God is omnibenevolent. Is this the case? Cause the Bible would make a lot more sense if God was percieved as a sadist. It would explain that insane book of Job. As I said it was a Christian claim rather than a biblical one and I do recognize the maltheist answer to Mackie as valid.

I am familiar with Leibniz and he covers only a very tiny portion of the full implications of Mackie's challenge.

As I said it was a Christian claim rather than a biblical one and I do recognize the maltheist answer to Mackie as valid.



Eliminating evil that we have caused would contradict his very omnibenevolence though. One aspect of holiness is justice. If he eliminated suffering, then justice would not be served, as it is the natural consequence of sin. Sorry if that argument stinks, I'm sleepy but I refuse to go to bed since I have to get a root canal when I wake up! :(

Eliminating evil that we have caused would contradict his very omnibenevolence though. One aspect of holiness is justice. If he eliminated suffering, then justice would not be served, as it is the natural consequence of sin. Sorry if that argument stinks, I'm sleepy but I refuse to go to bed since I have to get a root canal when I wake up! :(

There is no reason an omnipotent being couldn't remove all evil in a fashion that deals justice. Furthermore, one can have free will and still only have non-evil choices.

The whole concept of original sin has me a little bit confused.

Given that:

All people make mistakes in their life, but the great majority of people strive to do what is good/right overall.

The choice made by my (alleged) distant ancestor should not make me inherently evil.

A basic cornerstone of Christianity, Islam, etc., is that God is all-loving and all-wise, and that no soul is so evil as to be beyond redemption.



There are differing perspectives on the whole original sin thing. To me, children are not born stained with sin, however they are born with the propensity to sin. Evil is part of our nature. We are not evil until we commit a sinful act, yet we will all commit a sinful act at least once during our lives.

There is no reason an omnipotent being couldn't remove all evil in a fashion that deals justice. Furthermore, one can have free will and still only have non-evil choices.



But the removal of evil without meting out justice would be a contradiction. Removal of evil necessitates justice and punishment without an atonement for the sin. Also, we can have free will and non-evil choices...but nobody save Christ has been or will be ever able to do that.

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.

I'm not religiouse, i don't belive in god technically Agnostic), but I understand it this way:

Free will and not hell bound is like a.. dang wahts the word? you can't have both. like you can't have a government that does everything for you, but gives you complete freedom (a la John Locke). The universe supposedly has to have natural laws, or it would simply be chaos (like it was in "the begining" yes?) no rules = chaos. rules = restrictions. once again, you can't have both.

He did foresee both the fall of A and E and Lucifer, but they ALL HAD FREE WILL. besides. without what adam and Ev did, there would be no human race cuz they couldn't have kids without sin (catholosism?) besides, he said "I told you so!"

and how is it a suicide if he didn't kill himself?

... yet we will all commit a sinful act at least once during our lives.

Tell us about yours. Was it totally hot? What were you wearing?

But the removal of evil without meting out justice would be a contradiction. Removal of evil necessitates justice and punishment without an atonement for the sin.

And in the process of removing evil he can deal out any punishment necessary if such a thing is called for at all. The only way you can escape this train of logic is if you start limiting God's power which defies his nature as an omnipotent entity.

And in the process of removing evil he can deal out any punishment necessary if such a thing is called for at all. The only way you can escape this train of logic is if you start limiting God's power which defies his nature as an omnipotent entity.



....why do people assume he is omnipotent anyway? The original texts refer to Him as almighty, which, in Hebrew tongue, did not equate to omnipotence. He has limitations. For instance, He is incapable of sin.



Edit: And He will remove evil. It will be eliminated on the Judgement Day.

....why do people assume he is omnipotent anyway? The original texts refer to Him as almighty, which, in Hebrew tongue, did not equate to omnipotence. He has limitations. For instance, He is incapable of sin.



Edit: And He will remove evil. It will be eliminated on the Judgement Day.

It would have been done by now, because an omnibenevolent entity would not have tolerated it this long. As for his omnipotence, is it not a quote from the bible that "all things are possible with God" or something to that effect?

....why do people assume he is omnipotent anyway? The original texts refer to Him as almighty, which, in Hebrew tongue, did not equate to omnipotence. He has limitations. For instance, He is incapable of sin.



Edit: And He will remove evil. It will be eliminated on the Judgement Day.
and because he is incapable of sin, he can sit in judgement of us, yadda, yadda. you talk about how he can eradicate evil, but you talk about it as if one could exist without the other. how, in this universe of dualism and coexistant extremes, could you have drawn that counclusion? lava still burning under water. light traveling thru space without a medium (the only wave form to do so). don't make me get all agnostic jihad on you people! :mp5:

It would have been done by now, because an omnibenevolent entity would not have tolerated it this long. As for his omnipotence, is it not a quote from the bible that "all things are possible with God" or something to that effect?



That's because He is not constrained by time like we are. The issue is the removal of sin itself, not the time in which it occurs. Also, suffering and sin exist in the world to test us and see which of us truly love God.

That's because He is not constrained by time like we are. The issue is the removal of sin itself, not the time in which it occurs. Also, suffering and sin exist in the world to test us and see which of us truly love God.
That flies in the face on omniscience. If he knew everything, there would be no need to test us as he would already know the answer. Time constraints are also irrelevant because he allowed evil to exist at all, which a being with the holy traits would not have to begin with.

That's because He is not constrained by time like we are. The issue is the removal of sin itself, not the time in which it occurs. Also, suffering and sin exist in the world to test us and see which of us truly love God.

Suffering of man = God's Kryptonite. He doesn't get off on it, he's just powerless to stop it.

That flies in the face on omniscience. If he knew everything, there would be no need to test us as he would already know the answer. Time constraints are also irrelevant because he allowed evil to exist at all, which a being with the holy traits would not have to begin with.

I think the point is that he gave US the power to eradicate OUR OWN SIN. He knows we can/will do it, but we still have to ACTUALLY MAKE THE DESCISION OURSELVES (FREE WILL). Where is a Latter Day Saint to help me explain when i need one? (I'm agnostic, so don't start)

I think the point is that he gave US the power to eradicate OUR OWN SIN. He knows we can/will do it, but we still have to ACTUALLY MAKE THE DESCISION OURSELVES (FREE WILL). Where is a Latter Day Saint to help me explain when i need one? (I'm agnostic, so don't start)
So he defered the problem to us when it would cost nobody anything for him to do it himself? That doesn't help this case much either.

Suffering of man = God's Kryptonite. He doesn't get off on it, he's just powerless to stop it.
Comedown to it he is

One of his supposed (justice and wish for free will) is over riding his other part of his personality (all loving)

In the end parts of him are at war with each other and it comes down to what part of gods personality is “stronger”

So he defered the problem to us when it would cost nobody anything for him to do it himself? That doesn't help this case much either.



You don't seem to get it. For Him to eliminate sin, he would have to punish us for sinning. Omnibenevolence and justice are inseperable.

You don't seem to get it. For Him to eliminate sin, he would have to punish us for sinning. Omnibenevolence and justice are inseperable.
But he allowed/created sin to begin with. A being trully of god's descript would never have allowed sin to come to be to begin with.

I think the point is that he gave US the power to eradicate OUR OWN SIN. He knows we can/will do it, but we still have to ACTUALLY MAKE THE DESCISION OURSELVES (FREE WILL). Where is a Latter Day Saint to help me explain when i need one? (I'm agnostic, so don't start)
Not all of us have the ability to blindly have faith in something

Some of us CANT make that conscious decision to just believe in something you don’t truly feel

SO god is putting my eternal salvation effectively out of my reach (I can go through the motions but somewhere down inside of me I can not TRULY believe Christianities message … I have tried)

Though of course you will blame it on a flaw in me rather then a flaw with the process

You don't seem to get it. For Him to eliminate sin, he would have to punish us for sinning. Omnibenevolence and justice are inseperable.

That makes no sense. Did you mean Omnibenevolence and justice are incompatible?

So he defered the problem to us when it would cost nobody anything for him to do it himself? That doesn't help this case much either.

lol, you forget that, according to the religion, we decided to fall away ourselves. the LDS teach that there is no "ur born with it" sin (original sin?). we all decided to come down here on our own to grow, like kids going to school. that is why we have the power to destroy sin, cuz we made it in the first place by choosing to do evil. some of you people are treating good and evil like physical items, not ideas. good and evil is what you do, not what you are or what something is. a wall is not good or evil. its a wall. when u push it over on somebody who didn't do anything to u, ur evil cuz u did wrong, not the wall. the wall is still neutral. :headbang:

That flies in the face on omniscience. If he knew everything, there would be no need to test us as he would already know the answer. Time constraints are also irrelevant because he allowed evil to exist at all, which a being with the holy traits would not have to begin with.



Then creating us only to send us to Hell would be unjust. It is our actions, not His, that determine our eternal fate and we must be allowed to carry through with them for Him to judge us fairly. Also, the existence of evil is inevitable if we have free will. For if God were to eradicate all vestiges of free will in us, we would be naught but automatons. Thus, for His true judgement and our independent determination of our fate, evil must be allowed to exist for a period of time.

That makes no sense. Did you mean Omnibenevolence and justice are incompatible?


No, omnibenevolence and justice are compatible and necessary for the existence of one another. To be good, God must punish evil. If He did not punish evil, then He would not be good.

But he allowed/created sin to begin with. A being trully of god's descript would never have allowed sin to come to be to begin with.



That's not true. Allowing something to occur does not equate to responsibility for that action.

No, omnibenevolence and justice are compatible and necessary for the existence of one another. To be good, God must punish evil. If He did not punish evil, then He would not be good.

Then I guess it is true. Christianity is built on faulty logic. It's circular. What a shame.

lol, you forget that, according to the religion, we decided to fall away ourselves. the LDS teach that there is no "ur born with it" sin (original sin?). we all decided to come down here on our own to grow, like kids going to school. that is why we have the power to destroy sin, cuz we made it in the first place by choosing to do evil. some of you people are treating good and evil like physical items, not ideas. good and evil is what you do, not what you are or what something is. a wall is not good or evil. its a wall. when u push it over on somebody who didn't do anything to u, ur evil cuz u did wrong, not the wall. the wall is still neutral. :headbang: Erm... okay. He still allowed sin to happen, something that would not have happened if he held the divine traits.

Then creating us only to send us to Hell would be unjust. It is our actions, not His, that determine our eternal fate and we must be allowed to carry through with them for Him to judge us fairly. And for this I direct you to the omniscience/ Free will paradox.

Also, the existence of evil is inevitable if we have free will. For if God were to eradicate all vestiges of free will in us, we would be naught but automatons. Thus, for His true judgement and our independent determination of our fate, evil must be allowed to exist for a period of time. No, because that pressuposes that free will requires the choice of evil or for us to make the choice of evil. He could create a universe with all good chocies. Once again, take eden, remove the tree and remove the snake. Instant universe devoid of evil choices with free will apleanty.

That's not true. Allowing something to occur does not equate to responsibility for that action.

I hope you're not a lifeguard.

That's not true. Allowing something to occur does not equate to responsibility for that action.
He did more than allow it, he actuallized the universe in which it was destined to happen.

I hope you're not a lifeguard.



Maybe I should append something to it to make it less evil sounding: Allowing an act to occur does not equate to responsibility for that act if a seperate individual used his/her free will to commit the act.

He did more than allow it, he actuallized the universe in which it was destined to happen.


It existed prior to the universe. Satan is the source of evil.

Maybe I should append something to it to make it less evil sounding: Allowing an act to occur does not equate to responsibility for that act if a seperate individual used his/her free will to commit the act.

I hope you are not a police woman.

It existed prior to the universe. Satan is the source of evil.
Then Adam and Eve existed before existance? :confused:

It existed prior to the universe. Satan is the source of evil.

I thought God created Satan????

Erm... okay. He still allowed sin to happen, something that would not have happened if he held the divine traits.

And for this I direct you to the omniscience/ Free will paradox.
No, because that pressuposes that free will requires the choice of evil or for us to make the choice of evil. He could create a universe with all good chocies. Once again, take eden, remove the tree and remove the snake. Instant universe devoid of evil choices with free will apleanty.

how is there free will in that universe? if i gave you two doors and took one away, that would be free will acording to your logic. if i gave you a bunch of apples, how is choosing between them free will? you would need apples AND oranges to make a choice (good and evil). he didn't allow it to happen, we did. he didn't allow it to happen any more then you would allow someone to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. i'm sure you have come across a situation in your life when u know something bad was going to happen, but you were powerless to stop it. in this case, he would have to rob us of free will (I'd bet that counts as evil, and he's incapable of it) to prevent it. we allowed it to happen when we chose the wrong things to do while knowing what is right.

how is there free will in that universe? if i gave you two doors and took one away, that would be free will acording to your logic. if i gave you a bunch of apples, how is choosing between them free will? you would need apples AND oranges to make a choice (good and evil). he didn't allow it to happen, we did. he didn't allow it to happen any more then you would allow someone to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. i'm sure you have come across a situation in your life when u know something bad was going to happen, but you were powerless to stop it. in this case, he would have to rob us of free will (I'd bet that counts as evil, and he's incapable of it) to prevent it. we allowed it to happen when we chose the wrong things to do while knowing what is right.Effective way to strawman my position. You can have apples and oranges and still keep out the the crap sandwiches. Limiting it to all good choices of equal number does not impede free will.

I thought God created Satan????
no, satan created himself when he chose to disobey god. i don't remember exactly, but i think he actualy started a war and tried to take over. :gundge:

on a side note, I wonder if hippies go to heaven? do you think they would hop in a tie dyed bus and go to hell to hold a rallay against the evil there? :cool: groovy!

no, satan created himself when he chose to disobey god. i don't remember exactly, but i think he actualy started a war and tried to take over. :gundge:

on a side note, I wonder if hippies go to heaven? do you think they would hop in a tie dyed bus and go to hell to hold a rallay against the evil there? :cool: groovy!

How can something that doesn't exist make a decision? Now you're just being silly.

Effective way to strawman my position. You can have apples and oranges and still keep out the the crap sandwiches. Limiting it to all good choices of equal number does not impede free will.

how is it free will if you only get to pick one thing? if you can only choose to be good, then that isn't a choice. If you can only choose to follow god, then you don't have free will, cuz you can't choose satan. If the only choice is to run Red Hat on my pc, how could i then choose the evil (the wonderful evil) of Microsoft?

How can something that doesn't exist make a decision? Now you're just being silly.
I'm fairly sure this same logic would lead to Darth Vader creating himself.

How can something that doesn't exist make a decision? Now you're just being silly.

i'm sure he's made a few descions. the sky is blue. we have free will, he's not evil and good fell away from heaven. hmmm, interesting thought. what if the story had happend the other way around? what if God was the badguy and Satan, the good guy, fell away from evil? :p

how is it free will if you only get to pick one thing? if you can only choose to be good, then that isn't a choice. If you can only choose to follow god, then you don't have free will, cuz you can't choose satan. If the only choice is to run Red Hat on my pc, how could i then choose the evil (the wonderful evil) of Microsoft?Because you still get multiple choices. It is like choosing between Pizza and Steak. Both are good, both require a choice, but neither is bad. I have free will to decide which I want and at the same time neither of them is a moral decision.

I'm fairly sure this same logic would lead to Darth Vader creating himself.

I haven't seen the movie, but maybe. did he choose to do evil things or was he born that way? that is a major argument in religion. I really need to veg and catch up on my flicks.

Because you still get multiple choices. It is like choosing between Pizza and Steak. Both are good, both require a choice, but neither is bad. I have free will to decide which I want and at the same time neither of them is a moral decision.

lol, what pizza and steak are you eating that isn't bad for you? :D I'm sure you mean the taste. maybe this will help. according to www.mirriamwebster.com:

Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

he CANNOT TAKE THE SNAKE AWAY. that is divine intervention.
dude, i'm really enjoying this conversation.

lol, what pizza and steak are you eating that isn't bad for you? :D I'm sure you mean the taste. One, neither of them is bad for you in moderation but yes I was narrowing it to taste for the sake of analogy. maybe this will help. according to www.mirriamwebster.com:
]
Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

he CANNOT TAKE THE SNAKE AWAY. that is divine intervention.
dude, i'm really enjoying this conversation.
On the flip side he created Lucifer to begin with thus divine intervention caused evil.

I haven't seen the movie, but maybe. did he choose to do evil things or was he born that way? that is a major argument in religion. I really need to veg and catch up on my flicks It was destiny.

One, neither of them is bad for you in moderation but yes I was narrowing it to taste for the sake of analogy. maybe this will help. according to www.mirriamwebster.com:

On the flip side he created Lucifer to begin with thus divine intervention caused evil.

It was destiny.

mmm, i never was much for destiny. all that predetermined crapola kinda ticks me off. :mad: He didn't create lucifer in the version i heard (another problem with organized religion and a reason i am agnostic). In the version i heard, it seemed to me like the only person without free will was god himself. or maybe the bible is like a shakesperian tragedy of his life? :D

anyway, i understood it as even the angels chose to follow god of their own free will. Lucifer (he had a differnet name at the time, i think he got lucifer when he fell) decided he'd had enough of following and wanted some large and in charge action. pride was his sin, if ur wondering.

sometimes it seems to me that god is almost more of an IDEA then a person, but that has nothing really do do with this thread.

mmm, i never was much for destiny. all that predetermined crapola kinda ticks me off. :mad: He didn't create lucifer in the version i heard (another problem with organized religion and a reason i am agnostic). In the version i heard, it seemed to me like the only person without free will was god himself. or maybe the bible is like a shakesperian tragedy of his life? :D

anyway, i understood it as even the angels chose to follow god of their own free will. Lucifer (he had a differnet name at the time, i think he got lucifer when he fell) decided he'd had enough of following and wanted some large and in charge action. pride was his sin, if ur wondering.

sometimes it seems to me that god is almost more of an IDEA then a person, but that has nothing really do do with this thread.

But if God created everything, naturally Lucifer must have been created by God as well. If he didn't where did Lucifer come from?

But if God created everything, naturally Lucifer must have been created by God as well. If he didn't where did Lucifer come from?
ah, for that i turn to the mormons. the angels and us are all his children. like, genetically, but on a spiritual level. as in he has a wife kinda thing. I never got much into that, but that is what i was told. we are down here cuz we are proving that we are ready to be... adults in the divin sense, i guess. kinda like angels are spritual children, when we are mortal we are like teenagers, then we go back up and start our own families... I don't get how that isn't incest, but i never really asked... :rolleyes:

ah, for that i turn to the mormons. the angels and us are all his children. like, genetically, but on a spiritual level. as in he has a wife kinda thing. I never got much into that, but that is what i was told. we are down here cuz we are proving that we are ready to be... adults in the divin sense, i guess. kinda like angels are spritual children, when we are mortal we are like teenagers, then we go back up and start our own families... I don't get how that isn't incest, but i never really asked... :rolleyes:

Sounds about as likely as Scientology. ;)

l. Lucifer (he had a differnet name at the time, i think he got lucifer when he fell) decided he'd had enough of following and wanted some large and in charge action.

I think i got it, Lucifer means bringer of light. that was his name in heaven. when he lost his right to that name, he was only refered to as satan.

Satan Male Biblical 'Contrary, adversary, enemy, accuser'
Lucifer Male Biblical Bringing light

Sounds about as likely as Scientology. ;)
hmm, i never looked at scientology. didn't seem appealing. that and i still remember the commercails from when i was a kid

"dianetics, get ur free copy today"

that is the scientology book, yes?, no? maybe?

Xhadam: Lucifer was an Angel...this is what happened:

Way, way back, before this world or anything else was, God made a being called Lucifer. He was the first and most beautiful being that was ever created. Every precious stone was his covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold. He also had musical instruments built into his body and became the leader of the choir in heaven.

One of his jobs in heaven was to be the covering cherub or angel. This means he stood between God and the other angels protecting them from God's brightness and goodness. This is the highest position any created being could hold.

But, Lucifer was not satisfied with this. He wanted more. He wanted the other angels not only to look up to him as the highest angel, but to actually worship him. This was against God's law, for God who created all things is due all worship and Him only.

One day Lucifer overheard the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit planning to create a fabulous, new world. One like which they had never created before. It was to be the most beautiful world, containing the most beautiful plants, animals, birds, and beings God had ever created in one place. Lucifer wanted to be involved in this planning, but as he was excluded he became more jealous of God. He planned to set himself up as a god. He went about all the heavenly hosts planting seeds of doubt in all the angels' minds as to whether God was really just, and loving. Lucifer also said that he should be worshiped, just like God.

Not all the angels believed his lies nor thought that he should be worshipped like God. But one out of every three did believe Lucifer. This saddened God very much, but he could not let such rebellion exist in heaven. So there was a war in heaven. Michael, God the Son, and His angels fought against Lucifer and all the angels that thought he was right. Michael won the battle and Lucifer that old serpent called the Devil and Satan, which deceives the whole world, he was thrown out of heaven to this earth and his angels with him. These angels who were once good, kind, loving and obedient to God, became what are known today as evil spirits, devils or demons. Their main purpose in life is to try and trick all humans into thinking that Satan is right and God is wrong.

This story is based on Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:1-19; Revelation 12:7-9.

I used to be Christian (Baptist) about 2 years ago and I have to say that I personally came to the conclusion that it wasn't right. I became Muslim after studying Bhuddism, Catholicism, Atheism and even Wicca (Witchcraft).

I want to first tackle one thing: Free WILL. We do not have FREE WILL, we have FREE CHOICE. No one knows anything but Allah and all knowledge comes from Allah. (Allah =God in Arabic). Allah is the only one who can WILL to have anything done.

Satan could not be an angel. Satan was a Jinn, another creation of Allah who had freewill just like human beings. Satan did not try to take over heaven. Seriously use logic and you will realize; what can I do to my creator? NOTHING. Satan was not an angel because angels are made to serve god and can do nothing other than that. An angel cannot disobey god and an angel does not have Free Choice.


<Quote= Unspeakable>
Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.
</Quote>

Allah is omniscient, omnipotent and all loving, but he is way more than that. Allah already knows who will disobey him and who will obey him, if he didn't he would not be Allah. But if he were to automatically throw people in hell the people would be like, "You didn't even give us a chance!". In so Allah gives us a chance on Earth. He already knows if you will believe or not, but he gives you Free Choice to do as you please. We were created for one purpose, serve Allah. The crucifixion did not happen. Another was put in Christ's place. Jesus prayed for help, for God to save him and do you really think that God would not answer? And if Jesus is God (as some would foolishly believe) then he died (if the Crucifixion is right, which it isn't). How can god die??? God WILL NOT do anything that will make him not God, which means he will not become a man or die (because this makes him less than God and that he will not do because he doesn't will to do anything that will make him not God).



<Quote=Neo Rogolia>
It existed prior to the universe. Satan is the source of evil.
</Quote>

Satan is not the source of evil. He is a creation who chose to disobey Allah. We are our own source of evil. Everyone knows how to live and what is right and wrong. Some I agree do not due to special circumstances (medical, mental etc.).

I do not believe Isa (Jesus) died either. I do not believe Jesus is the literal SON of God either. Adam has been the only prophet attributed to as the son of god. Jesus is not one in a trinity, he is a prophet, as all others were before him. The trinity is polytheism any way you look at it. The trinity concept was not even invented until 325 A.D. during the Council of Nicea by Emperor Constatine (weird that the Keanu Reeves movie is also called this isn't it?...)

God says "Qun Faya Qun", "Be and it is". He does NOT have to die to forgive people of their sins! He can merely will them away if he chose to! It is ILLOGICAL to think God would die.

"Jesus is righteous and a PROPHET (best of humanity) and you have the bad people who disobey God and do not follow his laws. So one day God tells Jesus, "I need you to die on the crucifix so all these people can be saved. I know they disobeyed me, but I love them so much I want you to die." Jesus replies, "You have to be kidding me! These people break your laws and disobey you and you want me to die, for them?"

The above is not an attempt to disgrace Jesus (peace be upon him) or God, please do not take it this way. I am merely proving a point. You don't punish the good kid for what the bad kids do! That's illogical and not even close to be ing true.

God is not in heaven, he created the heavens and the earth and resides above his throne.

<Quote= Raving Atheist>
1) Omnipotence is impossible because God would, at a minimum, be unable to limit his powers, e.g., make a stone he cannot lift; if he could make such a stone, then his inability to lift it would defeat his omnipotence;

2) God's omnipotence conflicts with his omniscience, because if God knows everything that is going to happen in advance, he cannot do anything in the present; he must simply watch the future unfold as previously foreseen, because changing anything would falsify his prior belief concerning the future;

3) God's omnipotence precludes him from having knowledge of any sensations or emotions associated with weakness, e.g., fear, frustration, despair, sickness, etc., and thus conflicts with him omniscience;

4) God's omniscience precludes him from having knowledge of any emotions associated with surprise or anticipation, and thus conflicts with itself;

5) God's omniscience conflicts with his disembodiedness, since a being without a body could not know how to drive, swim, or perform any activity associated with having a body;

6) God's omniscience conflicts with his omnibenevolence, since a morally perfect god could not have knowledge of feelings of hate, lust, or envy, or cruelty, etc..

7) God's omniscience and omnipotence conflict with his omnibenevolence, since a god who could prevent evil would do so unless he were unable to do so or unaware of the evil.
</Quote>

Ok, let me nail this in the butt.

1. Sadly this attack is weak and pitiful. Romans use to do this to attack the christians all the time, but let me nail this in the butt. God never does anything that would make him not God. He would not LIFT a stone because that is something his CREATION does. He merely wills it and it becomes. First your statement is false. If you were to say, "Can Allah create a stone so big his CREATION cannot lift?" then the answer is easily yes. Allah is above his creation, stop putting him in it.

2. Psh, are you kidding me? Allah knows exactly what his creations will do. Do not put Allah in the creation sense. If Allah wills it, it is done. He can act at any time he pleases. He doesn't have a "belief" in the future, he is without time and without a physical essence. Allah is above his creation, stop putting him in it.

3. These are all "creation" emotions. He is above these and you cannot attribute this with him. Allah does not "fear", he does not get "sick". These arguments are weak man, just because he doesn't fear you believe God to be contradictory, please.

4. Allah does not need to be surprised and he doesn't have anticipation, these are his creations emotions and actions. Why would Allah need to be surprised or have anticipation? This is weak.

5.Drive, swim...you continue to put him in the creation. Allah says "Qun Faya Qun", "Be and it is." Stop putting him in the creation! He doesn't need to swim, he would not swim because this and any other human action makes him less than God.

6.Morals is something a creation exerts or practice. Allah has 99 names in Islam. Follow this link for more information:
http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/99names.htm

Why would god exert and try to "personally" experience deadly sins when he has ordained them wrong?????hate, lust, or envy, or cruelty- Please, only his creation experiences or practices these.

7. God put us here on Earth as a test, and that is exactly what it is. You CHOOSE to worship him or not, but I pray that most due, for their own sake. Evil is a term his creation created. Bad things happen because that is what this world is, a test. The worst of things, murder, rape, death- all the worst of things are a creation of Allah, but they are tests, extremely tough ones, but are tests. We CHOOSE to do actions such as those, Allah knows this, but Allah is the best of planners and uses those choices to test others as well.

Let me ask you a question Raving Atheist:

I have a model boat in my hand and I look at you and say, "It just exploded in my hand, NOTHING CREATED IT! What would you say? Most likely you would say, "Something had to create it, it has to be assembled, glued etc. to be put together. But I insist you just exploded right before me. You disagree of course and then I ask, "If you cannot believe a tiny ship exploded and all the molecules, colors etc. just blew up into one how can you believe the Earth did? Simply put there has to be a God, because the Earth is in too much balance and complicated to have just been blown up and put together. Allah created the Big Bang (means of creation), accept it or not, it's your CHOICE.

Man did not make God. He wasn't dreamt up or created as older false gods were to explain things. The divine exists, just read above one more time for PROOF.

Religion is not just based on Faith, well mine isn't it. My religion, Islam, is based on FAITH AND PROOF. Without proof you have empty sentences and actions. Prove your faith and then you can say you have a belief.

If you want more information about Islam please visit:

http://www.islamtomorrow.com

I invite anyone seeking knowledge and truth to at least get a bird's eye view of it. Thanks alot guys, I await responses.

Mmm. God could exist, however, he would not be omnipotent, and omniscient. Reason? He created Lucifer, who then betrayed him. God either
1 - Wanted Lucifer to betray, create Hell, and put untold millions of people in suffering, or
2 - Isn't omnipotent.

Also, read Exodus 21:7 - It sanctions selling your children into slavery
Lev 25:44 - Allows you to have slaves of a neighbouring state.
Lev 19:19 - Planting two different crops in the same field, an abomination. Hmmm....

Xhadam: Lucifer was an Angel...this is what happened:

Way, way back, before this world or anything else was, God made a being called Lucifer. He was the first and most beautiful being that was ever created. Every precious stone was his covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold. He also had musical instruments built into his body and became the leader of the choir in heaven.

One of his jobs in heaven was to be the covering cherub or angel. This means he stood between God and the other angels protecting them from God's brightness and goodness. This is the highest position any created being could hold.

But, Lucifer was not satisfied with this. He wanted more. He wanted the other angels not only to look up to him as the highest angel, but to actually worship him. This was against God's law, for God who created all things is due all worship and Him only.

One day Lucifer overheard the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit planning to create a fabulous, new world. One like which they had never created before. It was to be the most beautiful world, containing the most beautiful plants, animals, birds, and beings God had ever created in one place. Lucifer wanted to be involved in this planning, but as he was excluded he became more jealous of God. He planned to set himself up as a god. He went about all the heavenly hosts planting seeds of doubt in all the angels' minds as to whether God was really just, and loving. Lucifer also said that he should be worshiped, just like God.

Not all the angels believed his lies nor thought that he should be worshipped like God. But one out of every three did believe Lucifer. This saddened God very much, but he could not let such rebellion exist in heaven. So there was a war in heaven. Michael, God the Son, and His angels fought against Lucifer and all the angels that thought he was right. Michael won the battle and Lucifer that old serpent called the Devil and Satan, which deceives the whole world, he was thrown out of heaven to this earth and his angels with him. These angels who were once good, kind, loving and obedient to God, became what are known today as evil spirits, devils or demons. Their main purpose in life is to try and trick all humans into thinking that Satan is right and God is wrong.

This story is based on Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:1-19; Revelation 12:7-9.

Thank you but this is much my point. God created Lucifer and at the time of creation God, being all knowing, surely must have realized that lucifer was going to screw up all creation.

Mmm. God could exist, however, he would not be omnipotent, and omniscient. Reason? He created Lucifer, who then betrayed him. God either
1 - Wanted Lucifer to betray, create Hell, and put untold millions of people in suffering, or
2 - Isn't omnipotent.

Also, read Exodus 21:7 - It sanctions selling your children into slavery
Lev 25:44 - Allows you to have slaves of a neighbouring state.
Lev 19:19 - Planting two different crops in the same field, an abomination. Hmmm....

1. He did not want Lucifer to betray him, but he knew he would. He creates humans whom he knows will disobey him, but still allows them to live. Lucifer did not create hell and hell is a place where those who disobey god go and are completely seperate from Allah, this is the ultimate punishment as on Earth we are as close to Allah as we can get, without being in Heaven.

The bible has been altered and changed. I, as a Muslim, have to believe the bible as being originally from Allah and it was. It has clearly been changed and does not have any pull on me whatsover. Only the Holy Quran has any pull with me, which is infallible (in Arabic).

As I said above, Allah is all knowing and uses others actions to tests others. This is merely a part of Allah's plan, although Satan chose to disobey Allah (the first) and is thus said to be the root of it all, when in fact it is our own FREE CHOICE that determines who we are and by the grace of Allah, through prayer, good deeds and such, Allah will forgive us and grant us paradise.

Meadinia, your religion seems to be about the same level of crazy as Christianity. You are both relating a bunch of half-assed legends and silly stories. So don't get too smug about how Islam makes more sense than Christianity. They are both not believable.

Xhadam: Lucifer was an Angel...this is what happened:

"" (i'm not gonna repeat it)

This story is based on Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:1-19; Revelation 12:7-9.

that holy trinity thing always boggeld my mind. one being is three, and yet isn't. jehova is Jesus is the holy son. but he is also god. try this on for size:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

and this is where i make my exit. its been fun! :fluffle: It's been fun, but i have a 9-5. thx for teh delightful discussion, i do love a real, non-hostile, open debate. all that " ur a freaking moron, and ur wrong, and ur religion is wrong" seems like a waste o time. I'm glad i didn't really see that here. maybe there is hope for people.... naw. :D

Meadinia, your religion seems to be about the same level of crazy as Christianity. You are both relating a bunch of half-assed legends and silly stories. So don't get too smug about how Islam makes more sense than Christianity. They are both not believable.

Here we go with insults. My religion offers truth, facts and faith. You can choose what you want, I could care less what happens to you, but I would hope you would choose to follow Allah. You can believe what you want, but I challenge you to prove anything in my religion wrong. ANYTHING. If you can prove something in the Quran to be contradictory I will burn the book. But until you can offer prove into your accusations then I don't care what you say.

Here we go with insults. My religion offers truth, facts and faith. You can choose what you want, I could care less what happens to you, but I would hope you would choose to follow Allah. You can believe what you want, but I challenge you to prove anything in my religion wrong. ANYTHING. If you can prove something in the Quran to be contradictory I will burn the book. But until you can offer prove into your accusations then I don't care what you say.

What's so insulting? You offered your belief that Christianity is wrong. I offered my opinion that both are wrong. Why is your disbelief not insulting, yet mine is?

For you to indict a bunch of silly stories by replacing them with slightly different silly stories just isn't very convincing. It's not my fault that you believe in fairytales.

Xhadam:

Of course He knew that Lucifer would fall..and tempt Eve...and so forth....personally, I think God let all of it happen for ONE reason....He wants our love out of free will...not out of being a puppet..do you think that we would really appreciate the blessings of God if we never knew what it was like without Him?.....honestly, I recommend that you read the books "A Case for Faith" and "A Case for Christ" BEFORE you make any judgemants on Christianity....those books address the very things that are being argued here....you may find that you disagree with them, but then you would be making an informed opinion...in any case, I think that you would find them an interesting read...

Meadinia, your religion seems to be about the same level of crazy as Christianity. You are both relating a bunch of half-assed legends and silly stories. So don't get too smug about how Islam makes more sense than Christianity. They are both not believable.

c'mon guys! we were doing so well! all you hate mongers make me wish mass murder solved something. :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :headbang:

karma may or may not be true, but when all you do is spew forth hate, it is true that all u get back is more of the same.

What's so insulting? You offered your belief that Christianity is wrong. I offered my opinion that both are wrong. Why is your disbelief not insulting, yet mine is?

For you to indict a bunch of silly stories by replacing them with slightly different silly stories just isn't very convincing. It's not my fault that you believe in fairytales.

You're right, I used insulting wrongly and I apologize. Fairy tales are made up and created. I don't have to convince you of anything, just warn you. If you think I believe in "fairytales" then that's your choice. But if you believe my religion to be full of silly stories then I challenge you to prove them wrong or that they are as you say. Are you just the type of person who critisizes without the proper research and facts? I don't think so, you seem like an intelligent person.

I'm fairly sure I spoke to the author of the Case for Christ face to face and he wasn't able to give me an answer. I have seen these arguments a thousand times before, it is nearly impossible not to in my line of study. One need not read the book to get every argument contained therein, you will find there are people more than happy to put every last claim in the books online.

c'mon guys! we were doing so well! all you hate mongers make me wish mass murder solved something. :

karma may or may not be true, but when all you do is spew forth hate, it is true that all u get back is more of the same.

I wasn't spewing forth hate, at least I didn't think so and if anyone thought I was I truly apologize! I wasn't meaning to attack Christianity and I would never do it willingly. The title of this thread is "Christianity is built on fault logic!" I mean, if that isn't spewing forth hate I don't know what is. I apologize if my post offended anyone, as I didn't mean to do that. I just wanted to put my oppinion in and reply to others and answer them according to what I believe is right.

Xhadam:

My suggestion is read them anyway....if nothing else, it may give you more reason to believe what you do...what's the harm in reading them?...I am not here to convince you one way or the other...just here to offer different ways of thought...

I wasn't spewing forth hate, at least I didn't think so and if anyone thought I was I truly apologize! I wasn't meaning to attack Christianity and I would never do it willingly. The title of this thread is "Christianity is built on fault logic!" I mean, if that isn't spewing forth hate I don't know what is. I apologize if my post offended anyone, as I didn't mean to do that. I just wanted to put my oppinion in and reply to others and answer them according to what I believe is right.
not you. u were being good (i think). you can have a discussion without calling other people ideals and belifes "fairytales" or saying its a bunch of "half assed stories". especilay if you've got nothing more then mud to throw in peoples eyes. along those lines, don't throw sand in peoples face to cover up the fact that you've got nothing to bring to the table.

not you. u were being good (i think). you can have a discussion without calling other people ideals and belifes "fairytales" or saying its a bunch of "half assed stories". especilay if you've got nothing more then mud to throw in peoples eyes. along those lines, don't throw sand in peoples face to cover up the fact that you've got nothing to bring to the table.

and shame on me for breaking my own rule!

You're right, I used insulting wrongly and I apologize. Fairy tales are made up and created. I don't have to convince you of anything, just warn you. If you think I believe in "fairytales" then that's your choice. But if you believe my religion to be full of silly stories then I challenge you to prove them wrong or that they are as you say. Are you just the type of person who critisizes without the proper research and facts? I don't think so, you seem like an intelligent person.

Why do I need to debunk something that is pure assertion? You present all this knowledge about that nature of God and Heaven and Satan and Jinn etc - yet these are all just stories you want to believe. You assert that they are true for the sole reason that some guy wrote them in a book 12 or 13 hundred years ago. That's an amazing lack of critical thinking. Please don't be insulted that not everybody is as gullible as you. If that sounds a little harsh, It's because you arrogantly assert that your silly stories are truth and another Religion's silly stories are false. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me - especially when the stories are so similar.

not you. u were being good (i think). you can have a discussion without calling other people ideals and belifes "fairytales" or saying its a bunch of "half assed stories". especilay if you've got nothing more then mud to throw in peoples eyes. along those lines, don't throw sand in peoples face to cover up the fact that you've got nothing to bring to the table.

Ah, I was just making sure. The topic is Christianity is built on faulty logic and is more of a statement inquired at getting a debate started. My posts will lean towards Islam, but you have to remember I am muslim. I agree with you though about the "half assed stories" and such. It's not the "stories" that have an impact, it's what they cause in human beings.

Why do I need to debunk something that is pure assertion? You present all this knowledge about that nature of God and Heaven and Satan and Jinn etc - yet these are all just stories you want to believe. You assert that they are true for the sole reason that some guy wrote them in a book 12 or 13 hundred years ago. That's an amazing lack of critical thinking. Please don't be insulted that not everybody is as gullible as you. If that sounds a little harsh, It's because you arrogantly assert that your silly stories are truth and another Religion's silly stories are false. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me - especially when the stories are so similar.

Islam came to be the final religion for all mankind, they are similair because there still exists truth in the Bible. And it was 1600 years ago when Islam was first revealed and the Quran means recitation, Al-Khutab means book and the Quran was not recorded in a book until way later. I base my belief on facts Gartref that is all. Not to get into the subject, but translation has big part to play into the alteration of The Bible's "stories" and such. I don't base my belief on faith, I base it on what I have learned. I'm not that stupid to just "believe". I believe for a reason and that reason is because I have discovered it to be true. Critical thinking, while searching for truth, is required and I use it every day.

I base my belief on facts Gartref that is all.

Where did these facts come from?

Where did these facts come from?
And for that matter what are these facts?

Where did these facts come from?

The Holy Quran and history. This is the bible to the Muslims. If you say that I am getting my information from a simple "book" then what do people read when they want to learn facts about things? Books! If you say that my book cannot be true then I implore you to prove anything in it wrong or false. If you can, (there has been a challenge since the creation of Islam to prove anything in the Quran false, and no one has been able to.) then I will burn every copy of the book I can find. The Quran is not my only source of facts, but it is the only one I can gather facts from and be 100% positive.

NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO BECOME RELIGOUS, ONLY TO RESPECT OUR BELIEFS. YOU ARE BEING RACE-HATING AND DISRESPECTING RELIGOUS PEOPLE. RELIGOUS PEOPLE FIND COMFORT IN THE BELIEF OF GOD AND SOME PEOPLE FIND COMFORT IN COMPUTER GAMES --- WE'RE ALL THE SAME.

I WAS REALLY OFFENDED BY SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS. IF YOU HAD BEEN SAYING THAT ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE'S BELIEFS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RACIST. Just because other people have belief in God doesn't been you should shout s**t at their beliefs.

CHRISTIANITY IS BUILT ON A NATIONWIDE UNION OF A BELIEF IN GOD. IT HAS BEEN BUILT OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS. PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO KNOW NOTHING SHUOLD ACTUALLY FIND OUT ABOUT THE ADMIRABLE QUALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

Meadinia is a racist MUSLIM. WE DON'T DISS ISLAM SO DON'T DISS CHRISTIANITY. YOU ARE JELOUS BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE ARE CHRISTIAN THAT ISLAMIC.

RACIST ANIMAL.

NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO BECOME RELIGOUS, ONLY TO RESPECT OUR BELIEFS. YOU ARE BEING RACE-HATING AND DISRESPECTING RELIGOUS PEOPLE. RELIGOUS PEOPLE FIND COMFORT IN THE BELIEF OF GOD AND SOME PEOPLE FIND COMFORT IN COMPUTER GAMES --- WE'RE ALL THE SAME.

I WAS REALLY OFFENDED BY SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS. IF YOU HAD BEEN SAYING THAT ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE'S BELIEFS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RACIST. Just because other people have belief in God doesn't been you should shout s**t at their beliefs.

CHRISTIANITY IS BUILT ON A NATIONWIDE UNION OF A BELIEF IN GOD. IT HAS BEEN BUILT OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS. PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO KNOW NOTHING SHUOLD ACTUALLY FIND OUT ABOUT THE ADMIRABLE QUALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

Admirable qualities like the ability to hit Caps Lock, eh?

NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO BECOME RELIGOUS, ONLY TO RESPECT OUR BELIEFS. YOU ARE BEING RACE-HATING AND DISRESPECTING RELIGOUS PEOPLE. RELIGOUS PEOPLE FIND COMFORT IN THE BELIEF OF GOD AND SOME PEOPLE FIND COMFORT IN COMPUTER GAMES --- WE'RE ALL THE SAME.

I WAS REALLY OFFENDED BY SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS. IF YOU HAD BEEN SAYING THAT ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE'S BELIEFS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RACIST. Just because other people have belief in God doesn't been you should shout s**t at their beliefs.

CHRISTIANITY IS BUILT ON A NATIONWIDE UNION OF A BELIEF IN GOD. IT HAS BEEN BUILT OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS. PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO KNOW NOTHING SHUOLD ACTUALLY FIND OUT ABOUT THE ADMIRABLE QUALITIES OF CHRISTIANS.

I never believe anything that is written in ALL CAPS.

And for that matter what are these facts?

Can you be more specific? There are lots of facts, but I simply base my life around faith and proof (facts), in Islam. I will try and list some of the facts below:

1. Allah exists and is perfect in all ways and above his creation.
2. There have been prophets sent to try and bring humanity back to Allah and his laws.
3. That there are scientific miracles in the Quran that scientists are only in the past 20-30 years discovering.
4. That the only way to live and truly be happy and fulfilled is by worshipping Allah alone and without any partners.

I could go on, but the list of facts is extreme, and you'll need to be more specific Xhadam.

Can you be more specific? There are lots of facts, but I simply base my life around faith and proof (facts), in Islam. I will try and list some of the facts below:

1. Allah exists and is perfect in all ways and above his creation.
2. There have been prophets sent to try and bring humanity back to Allah and his laws.
3. That there are scientific miracles in the Quran that scientists are only in the past 20-30 years discovering.
4. That the only way to live and truly be happy and fulfilled is by worshipping Allah alone and without any partners.

I could go on, but the list of facts is extreme, and you'll need to be more specific Xhadam.

Alright, to narrow it abit, could you specifcy what the miracles you mentioned in number 3 are and what the scientists found?

Meadinia is a racist MUSLIM. WE DON'T DISS ISLAM SO DON'T DISS CHRISTIANITY. YOU ARE JELOUS BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE ARE CHRISTIAN THAT ISLAMIC.

RACIST ANIMAL.

Wow, and calling me a racist animal is really considerate. How am I a racist muslim? I could care less about the color of your skin. I'm not dissing Christianity either. And actually, a lot of Christians are just "face" Christians as I know, I used to be one. It's quality, not numbers. You are obviously proof of this. I never meant to attack Christianity and if you took it that way then I am sorry. Christians and Jews are my brethern. The topic is Christianity is built on faulty logic, why don't you go and blast the creator, I am just replying to the thread.

Xhadam:

I'm just going to use our conversations to make a point to Androis. Xhadam, Have I asked you to become Christian?....have you asked me to give up Christianity?....not everyone is hateful on here, Androis...and those who are just need to be loved....hating those who hate just breeds more hate...so, Androis, love your neighbor as you love yourself, no matter how they feel about religion.

Alright, to narrow it abit, could you specifcy what the miracles you mentioned in number 3 are and what the scientists found?

No problem at all Xhadam! The miracle in Islam, is that the Quran is infallable. It is perfected and cannot be changed (In Arabic). The scientific miracles are large and in abundance so I will post a link.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/verses_sci.htm

I hope that helps some.

Xhadam:

I'm just going to use our conversations to make a point to Androis. Xhadam, Have I asked you to become Christian?....have you asked me to give up Christianity?....not everyone is hateful on here, Androis...and those who are just need to be loved....hating those who hate just breeds more hate...so, Androis, love your neighbor as you love yourself, no matter how they feel about religion.
True. Our conversations have been quite civil and pleasant. Mere disagreement on something, even something of a personal nature like religion, need not mean there is a presence of hatred, hostility, nor intollerance of other's beliefs.

True. Our conversations have been quite civil and pleasant. Mere disagreement on something, even something of a personal nature like religion, need not mean there is a presence of hatred, hostility, nor intollerance of other's beliefs.

Even if we disagree on thing such as religion and politics we should not be hateful to one another. We are still all simply human beings and should respect one another.

The Holy Quran and history. This is the bible to the Muslims. If you say that I am getting my information from a simple "book" then what do people read when they want to learn facts about things? Books! If you say that my book cannot be true then I implore you to prove anything in it wrong or false. If you can, (there has been a challenge since the creation of Islam to prove anything in the Quran false, and no one has been able to.) then I will burn every copy of the book I can find. The Quran is not my only source of facts, but it is the only one I can gather facts from and be 100% positive.

The Quran is factual because the Quran is true. Not very persuasive.

As for the "challenge" - You are misrepresenting it. The challenge was to produce a chapter as good (or truthful or holy or whatever) as the Quran. Not to disprove some specific part of it. The whole "challenge" stuff is also not persuasive.

The Quran is factual because the Quran is true. Not very persuasive.

As for the "challenge" - You are misrepresenting it. The challenge was to produce a chapter as good (or truthful or holy or whatever) as the Quran. Not to disprove some specific part of it. The whole "challenge" stuff is a bunch of nonsense.

“And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed From time to time to Our Servant, then produce a Surrah Like thereunto; And call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, If your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot –And of a surely you cannot. Then fear the Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones – Which is prepared for those who reject Faith.”
(Al-Qur’an 2:23-24)

That is what it actually says. You are challenged to produce another surrah like it when in DOUBT. So this is also a challenge to prove it wrong. So I am right.

The Quran is factual because the Quran is true. Not very persuasive.

As for the "challenge" - You are misrepresenting it. The challenge was to produce a chapter as good (or truthful or holy or whatever) as the Quran. Not to disprove some specific part of it. The whole "challenge" stuff is also not persuasive.

I also do not have to persuade you of anything. As a Muslim we warn people, we do not try to "make", "persuade" or convert anyone. (Even though in Islam when you come to Islam you "revert", you do not "convert")

“And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed From time to time to Our Servant, then produce a Surrah Like thereunto; And call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, If your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot –And of a surely you cannot. Then fear the Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones – Which is prepared for those who reject Faith.”
(Al-Qur’an 2:23-24)

That is what it actually says. You are challenged to produce another surrah like it when in DOUBT. So this is also a challenge to prove it wrong. So I am right.

So... instead of pointing out some silly passage, I have to write a frilly new passage to replace it. Then the council of poobahs will read it and decide whose better. Great. How can adult human beings take this stuff seriously? I'm outta here.

So... instead of pointing out some silly passage, I have to write a frilly new passage to replace it. Then the council of poobahs will read it and decide whose better. Great. How can adult human beings take this stuff seriously? I'm outta here.

I didn't write this, this comes from the Holy Quran. I was merely proving my point. I hate to see you go, I pray that you will be lead to truth Gartef and this is to show upmost respect for you and what you believe.

No problem at all Xhadam! The miracle in Islam, is that the Quran is infallable. It is perfected and cannot be changed (In Arabic). The scientific miracles are large and in abundance so I will post a link.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/verses_sci.htm

I hope that helps some.
Interesting site though it has some flaws. It says "The theory of evolution, as known, claims that inorganic chemical compounds came together by chance and as a result of randomly occurring natural phenomena, they formed first the building blocks of life and ultimately life." Actually, that is not covered by evolution at all, that is covered by a seperate theory known as abiogenesis.

Another claim is that the Quran makers figured out the earth was spherical first, however, even the ancient Greeks had managed to figure that one out millenia before the Quran.

There are some interesting dynamics discussed between the Bible and the Quran in regards to creation about six day creation as opposed to six days and then rest. However, I am not sure they are actually different. For example, in legal proceedings when a side "rests" it means they merely stop, not that they are literally tired and need to go take a nap or something. Could on the seventh day God resting be interpretted to mean that on the Seventh day god stopped creating and would this shift not reconsile the difference with the Quran?

In any case, I shall have to go over this in more depth when I have more time. It is very late here.

Interesting site though it has some flaws. It says "The theory of evolution, as known, claims that inorganic chemical compounds came together by chance and as a result of randomly occurring natural phenomena, they formed first the building blocks of life and ultimately life." Actually, that is not covered by evolution at all, that is covered by a seperate theory known as abiogenesis.

Another claim is that the Quran makers figured out the earth was spherical first, however, even the ancient Greeks had managed to figure that one out millenia before the Quran.

There are some interesting dynamics discussed between the Bible and the Quran in regards to creation about six day creation as opposed to six days and then rest. However, I am not sure they are actually different. For example, in legal proceedings when a side "rests" it means they merely stop, not that they are literally tired and need to go take a nap or something. Could on the seventh day God resting be interpretted to mean that on the Seventh day god stopped creating and would this shift not reconsile the difference with the Quran?

In any case, I shall have to go over this in more depth when I have more time. It is very late here.


Well, I request that you visit http://www.islamtomorrow.com. There is a lot more information on the specifics and I am not versed enough in Science to actually give an answer without citing sources of present answers. I have the same belief about the way the bible is worded in that "rest" means to just stop. If you want to discuss the matter further you can contact me on AIM- Chazam05 or MSN- muslim_flatbeats@hotmail.com.

Well, I request that you visit http://www.islamtomorrow.com. There is a lot more information on the specifics and I am not versed enough in Science to actually give an answer without citing sources of present answers. I have the same belief about the way the bible is worded in that "rest" means to just stop. If you want to discuss the matter further you can contact me on AIM- Chazam05 or MSN- muslim_flatbeats@hotmail.com.
I shall add you tommorrow (MSN) but now I must rest, in the sleep way. It is well past four in the morning here. And so I bid you all good night, good day, or good <insert whichever temporal expression fits for you here>.

I think if one wanted to confuse the teachings of Jesus, then it would be quite easy. But if you approach it with a genuine desire to understand what Goodness meant when He says to follow Him means to hate your family and even your own life, then you can arrive at some pretty profound truths. (For example, to follow Christ means to die to self. Life is found in death. Your family, in that culture, represented one of your strongest ties to this current temporal life. Removing that tie, in order to follow Christ, meant that your allegiance is firstly to God, rather than to your family or yourself. Only in this way can one experience the real life, discover your real self, and potentially love your family far more than ever before. God is love, as the scriptures say, and making your highest allegience to Love is hardly likely to be bad for your family in the context of eternity.)

But how does this differentiate Jesus from any other cult leader?

Also, there are several other points I had made in my post - you haven't addressed any of those.

Of course, these truths will be hidden from someone who is wanting the Bible look like a mess so that he is free of the obligation to believe it (and perhaps obey it--how terrifying!).

You mean, just like you are free not to believe in or follow the Pagan way? I mean, seriously, why do I need an excuse not to follow someone else's holy book?

For example, when Jesus talks about how it is better to cut off your hand that causes you to sin than to enter hell with both hands, He is talking in a very deep way about our lives. I have no hesitation in saying that we should take him literally--to literally cut off my hand if it causes me to sin. However, I also accept that He was intelligent enough to understand that we are also intelligent enough to know that our hands are not what causes us to sin, but that it is the desires deep within, desires to rebel, to be in control of my own life, to set myself up as the final say of what is right and wrong, to seek my own selfish ends regardless of the plight of those around me, etc. etc.---these are the things that have to be cut off, removed from my life, put to death. This I have understood even from a small child, as soon as I was old enough to read the Bible for myself. I didn't need a PhD to get to that conclusion.

Well, Origen was a pretty smart guy, and yet he seems to have misunderstood when Jesus spoke of cutting off certain other body parts. What makes you smarter than him?

Many of the teachings in the Bible were directed to people of different cultures and times, but the truths in them are still true for all people, and these truths are to teach us how to know God personally, the way He made us to be. We may not understand them all, or even a fraction of them, but when we obey what we do understand, we are given more understanding, more of that 'sense' of what it means to know God and understand what He is trying to communicate through the Bible.

The bible was written by men who are flawed creatures, no better than you or me. What makes them qualified to speak for "God"? Don't you think that "God" is perfectly capable of making himself/herself/themselves understood without the services of an interpreter or an intermediary?

Well, Origen was a pretty smart guy, and yet he seems to have misunderstood when Jesus spoke of cutting off certain other body parts. What makes you smarter than him?

Jesus says cut off your hand if it causes you to sin. But its not your hand that actually causes you to sin. What causes you to sin is your desires and nature. What he meant by this is that you should cut out of your life that which causes you to sin. In otherwords (for a modern context) say you have a computer of your own and no one knows what you use it for and you use the internet connection to look up porn. Now that causes you to commit lust (which Jesus describes as being a sin), thus if you want to follow Jesus's example then maybe you should disable the internet connection on that computer. Or to take a more dated example, suppose you were a tax collector in the days of Jesus. Now the reason these people were so hated is that not only did they collect the money from people (which they hated giving anyway) they also didnt have to tell you what the tax rates were. The Romans just gave them authority to collect tax. The public wouldnt know what the rate was so the collecters asked for more than was required and pocketed the diference. Thus if you were a tax collector in that instance maybe you should write down the level of tax when it is told to you by the Roman officals and then show it to everyone. Thus you are cutting out the element of deception from your work. Or if your lust for money was overtaking you and you wouldnt be able to do that job without steeling then leave the job. It basicly means cutting out the things in your life that can lead you to sin.

It basicly means cutting out the things in your life that can lead you to sin.

I guess that explains why Origen castrated himself. Too bad he bought into that whole Christian idea that sex is sinful. :rolleyes:

*BUMP*
Sorta interesting still.

And then there's Jesus's teachings about hating, rejecting and abandoning your family if you want to be his disciple, or stealing the property of others for him if it will make him look like he's fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy, or destroying a fig tree to show off his great powers to others, or selling your garment to buy a sword to cut off the high priest's servant's ear when your idol gets arrested (that's so he can show off his great and wondrous powers, proving once again to the ignorant that he is somehow a fulfillment of prophecy). I've found that the teachings of Jesus are kind of a mixed bag, and can be interpreted in many ways. It is better to use one's good sense and judgement rather than to take a book that was written in a different time, place, language and culture as 100% literal truth.

But how does this differentiate Jesus from any other cult leader?

Also, there are several other points I had made in my post - you haven't addressed any of those.

You have covered so many points here, it would take too long for me to go over them one by one. However, the point where you are accusing Jesus of setting up situations to show off his own powers--you have to admit that if he wasn't God, then he was rather clever at fulfilling the prophecies with just a handful of tricks (assuming accuracy of the Gospel accounts). If, however, He was God, I find it a good thing that he used opportunities to teach his disciples about the King and the truths of the Kingdom. Nothing arrogant and pretentious about that. Your criticism is only valid if he really was not God.

Also, you have taken some points out of context. For example, I don't see how Jesus telling his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword meant that he wanted them to defend him against the soldiers and the servants of the high priest. In fact, it sounds more like he actually rebuked them for getting in the way, for not understanding God's plan, even though he told them plenty of times beforehand.



You mean, just like you are free not to believe in or follow the Pagan way? I mean, seriously, why do I need an excuse not to follow someone else's holy book?


You and I are, of course, free to believe whatever. Not free of the consequences, mind you, but certainly free from any man-made law. But I suppose it to be a common way of thinking--first prove the Bible is full of flaws, or at least untrustworthy, then believe it so, and then be free of any obligation to accept any of the 'truth' in it. Of course, truth is such that it demands that we follow it wherever we find it, IF we are lovers of the truth. If we reject it, we show that we are not lovers of the truth, but that we hate it. If we can show that the truth is not really truth at all, then we avoid this moral showdown. I don't accuse you of this, since I don't know you. But I feel fairly sure that this issue is very real in the lives of many people who have come into contact with truth (at any level). Of course, there are those who have decided that the Bible does not contain truth, on an honest basis. Perhaps they have seen too many contradictions in the lives of those who claim to believe the Bible. I suppose that the more pain involved for the individual, the harder it gets to see the distinction between false Christians the truth that they are supposed to believe.


Well, Origen was a pretty smart guy, and yet he seems to have misunderstood when Jesus spoke of cutting off certain other body parts. What makes you smarter than him?


Origen......pffff. Ouch! What must that guy have been thinking? I've no idea how he got to that conclusion. I certainly don't assume that I was smarter than him. But being smart is not the same as understanding the words of Jesus. For example, you could easily be smarter than I, but still not understand what Jesus meant. I think, though, that the majority of Christians I know have not taken Origen's way, that I'm not alone in my interpretation.

Perhaps he thought that body mutilation was the easier way to go. Perhaps, in his situation, he was right. Jesus says, do what ever it takes to avoid sin. If that was his last option, he was right to do it.


The bible was written by men who are flawed creatures, no better than you or me. What makes them qualified to speak for "God"? Don't you think that "God" is perfectly capable of making himself/herself/themselves understood without the services of an interpreter or an intermediary?

On the contrary, I have often thought that the writers of the Bible were far better men than I, in terms of their devotion to God. Although they were indeed ordinary people.
However, what made them qualified is something about God. He does the choosing. He chose to use them, and guide them with the help of the Holy Spirit. So that the Bible is a combination of the efforts of man and of God. He certainly didn't need help from man. But why He loves to use ordinary people like you and me. Why? Perhaps you should ask Him.

I suspect the only way to prove the Bible really is the truth is to first believe it, live it, breathe it, and then watch as all God's promises come true. That is not going to be a satisfactory option for most atheists, I realize. But at least I know that it worked for me, and lots of other Christians that I have spoken to.

Threads that have the word "Christian" anywhere in the Title or first post should have aflame animation at the side. Same for threads containing the word "America", amoung others.

However, the point where you are accusing Jesus of setting up situations to show off his own powers--you have to admit that if he wasn't God, then he was rather clever at fulfilling the prophecies with just a handful of tricks (assuming accuracy of the Gospel accounts). If, however, He was God, I find it a good thing that he used opportunities to teach his disciples about the King and the truths of the Kingdom. Nothing arrogant and pretentious about that. Your criticism is only valid if he really was not God.

If signs and wonders are proof that one is God incarnate, then please explain why Jesus would bother to give his followers this warning:

Matthew 24:23,24 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Also, you have taken some points out of context. For example, I don't see how Jesus telling his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword meant that he wanted them to defend him against the soldiers and the servants of the high priest. In fact, it sounds more like he actually rebuked them for getting in the way, for not understanding God's plan, even though he told them plenty of times beforehand.

Then why did he advise his disciples to sell their garments to buy swords in the first place?

You and I are, of course, free to believe whatever. Not free of the consequences, mind you, but certainly free from any man-made law. But I suppose it to be a common way of thinking--first prove the Bible is full of flaws, or at least untrustworthy, then believe it so, and then be free of any obligation to accept any of the 'truth' in it. Of course, truth is such that it demands that we follow it wherever we find it, IF we are lovers of the truth. If we reject it, we show that we are not lovers of the truth, but that we hate it. If we can show that the truth is not really truth at all, then we avoid this moral showdown.

How about reading the bible with open eyes and being willing to see the flaws in it, rather than blindly following something so you can have a built-in excuse to behave very badly (e.g., compare the destruction of native cultures in the Americas with the destruction of the Canaanites)?

I don't accuse you of this, since I don't know you. But I feel fairly sure that this issue is very real in the lives of many people who have come into contact with truth (at any level). Of course, there are those who have decided that the Bible does not contain truth, on an honest basis. Perhaps they have seen too many contradictions in the lives of those who claim to believe the Bible. I suppose that the more pain involved for the individual, the harder it gets to see the distinction between false Christians the truth that they are supposed to believe.

I have decided that the bible is a horrible teacher of moral truths, simply by having read it! Consider, for example, that Lot was Bible-God's idea of a righteous man. Then read Genesis 19 (especially verses 8 and 30-36) and tell me how Lot could possibly be considered righteous by any moral (not to mention, rational) being.

Perhaps he thought that body mutilation was the easier way to go. Perhaps, in his situation, he was right. Jesus says, do what ever it takes to avoid sin. If that was his last option, he was right to do it.

Well, I would agree with you if Origen would have been a rapist otherwise, but I do not agree with the premise that sex in itself is sinful, so I certainly do not agree with the remedy.

I suspect the only way to prove the Bible really is the truth is to first believe it, live it, breathe it, and then watch as all God's promises come true. That is not going to be a satisfactory option for most atheists, I realize. But at least I know that it worked for me, and lots of other Christians that I have spoken to.

Are you assuming I'm an atheist? Pagans are not typically atheists, just so you know. Also, please don't assume that I haven't read the bible, because I have. For the most part, I find it to be a horrible book, written by a bunch of racist, immoral and irrational misogynists, and I see no reason to use it as a guidebook for living a good and moral life (any more than I would use Mein Kampf (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf) for this purpose).

If you say that my book cannot be true then I implore you to prove anything in it wrong or false. If you can, (there has been a challenge since the creation of Islam to prove anything in the Quran false, and no one has been able to.) then I will burn every copy of the book I can find. The Quran is not my only source of facts, but it is the only one I can gather facts from and be 100% positive.

I have to ask, then:

2:132 "The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my sons! Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him)".

7:143 "And Moses fell down senseless. And when he woke he said: Glory unto Thee! I turn unto Thee repentant, and I am the first of (true) believers".

39:12 "And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who are muslims (surrender unto Him)".

How can Abraham, AND Moses, AND Muhammad ALL be the first Muslim?

If you take the DaVinci code, it will say that Christianity was based on a lie. However it doesn't say that God isn't real. Think about it. If God is real then why is the religion based on a lie? If he isn't, then why is their an actual religion for it? It's so that people become poor by paying the church which invented the religion. DaVinci was right about practically everthing he said before, so why shouldn't he be right about this? :confused:

If signs and wonders are proof that one is God incarnate, then please explain why Jesus would bother to give his followers this warning:

Matthew 24:23,24 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Good point. Signs and wonders alone are not good enough proof. This was never something that I claimed. I was saying that if Jesus was God, then it would be consistent of him to do such things. Personally, I have never experienced anything in my own life that would be considered a sign or a wonder to the next person, and yet I have come to believe in Jesus, for myself. I am trying to live by the truth, as I believe I have discovered it. I think that is the most important ingredient to finding God--doing what I think He wants me to do, as I have discovered it in the Bible and in the lives of others who are doing the same. And let us not forget the promise of the scriptures, that he is with us by His spirit, helping us continually, those whose hearts are turned towards him.



Then why did he advise his disciples to sell their garments to buy swords in the first place?

Jolly good question. One that I have often asked. I'm not sure I know the answer. I am neither a pacifist, or do I have any attraction for war or violence. I think Jesus was contrasting. In the first case, He sent them out unprepared, as lambs among wolves, without money or extra clothes or preparations, to tell everyone about the Kingdom of God. They all came back and reported, rather excitedly, fantastic success, and no one seemed hurt. In the second case, he warns that they will be persecuted. He tells them to get prepared (ie get a sword), even if it means changing your whole livestyle (sell something as personal as your cloak). I'm no Bible scholar, neither do I understand that much about Jewish culture. Yet the warning in the words of Jesus is rather clear. And when he says to get a sword, it means that troubled times are ahead. He was right.



How about reading the bible with open eyes and being willing to see the flaws in it, rather than blindly following something so you can have a built-in excuse to behave very badly (e.g., compare the destruction of native cultures in the Americas with the destruction of the Canaanites)?

Crumbs!! I always advocate reading the Bible with both eyes open. But rather than assuming something is a flaw when it doesn't look right to me, I would try to dig a bit deeper. I would rather assume that my understanding is lacking, than to write it off as an error. Time and again, I have found this the better way.
I have never personally found anything in the Bible which gave me an excuse to behave badly. As for case with the native Americans, there were plenty of examples of Christians who saw what was happening and were appalled, and tried to do something about it. To blame the destruction of the natives on the Bible makes about as much sense as blaming Einstein for the destruction of the Japanese cities.

The destruction of the Canaanites was an example of where God (according to the scriptures) gave clear warning to them to change their ways. Upon their refusal, God gave clear instructions to the Israelites to attack them. I find it all a bit bloody, to be honest, and no doubt the Canaanites, Israelites, and God also found it so. But to say that God commanded the war once back then, and thus He smiles upon it when we do so today--that is clearly not reasonable.


I have decided that the bible is a horrible teacher of moral truths, simply by having read it! Consider, for example, that Lot was Bible-God's idea of a righteous man. Then read Genesis 19 (especially verses 8 and 30-36) and tell me how Lot could possibly be considered righteous by any moral (not to mention, rational) being.


You are certainly free to make such a decision. But on the basis of the example of Lot? Come off it. You are not being reasonable. Lot was obviously a man of his time. He obviously didn't want to allow such a thing to happen to his daughters. Otherwise they would not have remained virgins up until such a time. For him to turn over the 'lords' to the wicked men of the city was worse than turning over his daughters. I have no trouble accepting that this was the right thing to do, in such a culture, where your guest was more important than anyone else in your entire household, particularly the women who were considered of lesser value. Notice that the Bible never condemns or justifies Lot's decision. Actually, it tends to blame Lot for having gotten himself in such a predicament. As for the later incident, with his daughters, I suppose Lot's fault was that he was so miserable about losing his wife and almost everyone else in his life that he indulged in too much wine. The girls did the rest. I can't bring myself to condemn him in this case.
As for why the Bible describes Lot as righteous is not because he was better in morals than the next person, but that he believed in and knew the God of Abraham. I believe that that belief is what kept him from completely adopting the ways of the people of Sodom.


Well, I would agree with you if Origen would have been a rapist otherwise, but I do not agree with the premise that sex in itself is sinful, so I certainly do not agree with the remedy.

Of course sex is not sin!!! Origen may have been a homosexual, for all I know. And if so, being a church leader would have made things rather difficult for him. My point--you have to know his situation before you can make a reasonable decision over whether you agree with him or not.



Are you assuming I'm an atheist? Pagans are not typically atheists, just so you know. Also, please don't assume that I haven't read the bible, because I have. For the most part, I find it to be a horrible book, written by a bunch of racist, immoral and irrational misogynists, and I see no reason to use it as a guidebook for living a good and moral life (any more than I would use Mein Kampf (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf) for this purpose).

At no time have I assumed you to be anything. If I mentioned the word 'atheist', it was only as an example. And it looks like you have some knowledge of the Bible. But now I am curious. As a Pagan, what do you believe in? The old Pagans were a mixed bunch. They seemed to believe in the gods or spirits, and they varied from people to people.

As for the Bible, I have found in it truths that, by changing my life accordingly have produced wonderful results. I have found that it pointed me the way to Christ, and I will always be grateful to God that He gave me a Bible. How is it possible that you and I could come to such different conclusions over the same book?

Furthermore, Jesus taught that the way to overcome evil was with love, i.e., to love your enemy, pray for them, and take opportunities to do good to them. Which part of that teaching do you find horrible?

I thought the deal with Christianity is you buy it all or none of it?


When I read the Bible, I try to understand what God would want to say to me. I don't assume it to be literal or otherwise. I see the importance in understanding the context of what the writer was trying to say. This is not picking and choosing, but rather trying to see what is relevant, what should be obeyed, what God really wanted to communicate.....every verse has its context.
I don't see why God would want me to stop shaving my chin. But I understand that for those people to whom the verse was written, it may have been important, considering that they were priests and needed some sort of regulations on how to conduct themselves and maintain their appearance. After all, it was a very important job to teach people about how to have reverence for God.
That is the lesson that is to be learned from such a verse. But you need sense to see it.

If you take the DaVinci code, it will say that Christianity was based on a lie. However it doesn't say that God isn't real. Think about it. If God is real then why is the religion based on a lie? If he isn't, then why is their an actual religion for it? It's so that people become poor by paying the church which invented the religion. DaVinci was right about practically everthing he said before, so why shouldn't he be right about this? :confused:
The Da Vinci code is a work of fiction and, frankly, its history is blatantly (if not fraudulently) wrong in several ways that I noticed when reading it. Therefore, I have to doubt any "facts" that come out of that book.

Never met an apologist I couldn't cut to ribbons....Usually using the Bible itself.

In order to attack Christianity, you can't hit any weak-points and cause it to collapse like a house of cards. We have an army of apologists that pretty much decimate any argument thrown at us, especially the short, lazy ones. It takes a pretty large theory like he has to make any headway.

I thought the deal with Christianity is you buy it all or none of it?

When the preacher says that you should either buy it all, or none of it, I suppose he means that we should either do our best to live our lives according to how the book tells us that God wants us to live. He is warning against being lukewarm.

But that doesn't mean that we have to make a fire by burning human dung, as God told Ezekiel, and cook our food with it. But rather, we are to try to understand what is literal, and what isn't. Obviously, where the Psalmist writes that the trees and the rivers clap their hands in praise of the creator, it's not to be taken literally. But rather, the reader is invited to take a deeper look at why trees and rivers were made, what they do, what they mean, etc., etc., in the context of praising God.

Take the instruction to avoid eating pig flesh, for example. It is in the Bible. But it's not a Christian instruction. It was directed to the Jews. We are not told why, apart from that it is unclean. In the context of God instructing the people on how He was to be worshipped, it makes sense that it belongs to those set of instructions. However, the new testament apostles held a conference over whether the new Christians should observe all the old Jewish instructions. They came to the conclusion (in Acts 15) that they should abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. But circumcision was no longer seen as necessary, since it was an outward sign of the condition of the heart, but it was the condition of the heart that really mattered.

I doubt anyone today would accuse those old apostles of not really buying into all of Christianity. They paid for it with their blood.

Never met an apologist I couldn't cut to ribbons....Usually using the Bible itself.

Perhaps you have not met too many apologists.

Never met an apologist I couldn't cut to ribbons....Usually using the Bible itself.



I find that hard to believe unless haven't met many apologists :p

Not all the Theists believe in Hell that is a Xtian concept.


The Proposed Position:

a. Atheists all shut the fuck up.
- Theists are not trying to 'shove it down your throat' or are 'mindless zombies'. You're just too much of an idiot to listen and take in and contemplate the opinion of theists.
b. Theists all shut the fuck up.
- Atheists have condemned themselves to an eternity in hell. They won't listen. They will never listen. Let them bask in their suicide.
c. Agnostics be stoned.
- Nuff' said.

Not all the Theists believe in Hell that is a Xtian concept.



You don't need to believe in it to go there...

Ok let me make this really simple. God is the author of a book the main character is Joe and and it is about his life. In God's mind he knows all the actions Joe will take before he takes them. From the characters stand point it seems like he chooses his own actions but while he is free to make any choice the author (God) already knows before page 1 what the character will have chosen.

God then takes the role of critic and condems the books because he doesn't like the ending but he knew what it would be before he started.


And if you kill your self no matter how friggin nobly you do it....its still suicide.


They are mutually exclusive. If you have free will, that means you have choice. It means you can choose between God and Hell. We inevitably choose hell.

But, he did, in fact make people capable of free will and not hell bound. They chose to be hell bound. Adam and Eve.


Who says he didn't? Again, it's called free will. If he didn't allow Adam to since, or Lucifer, than he would have been forcing puppets to do his bidding. He's not the kind of God who wants puppets to do his bidding, he wants people who will love him because he's him, not because he told them too.


Jumping on a grenade, taking a bullet, giving up your seat on the life boat...There's a difference between suicide and self-sacrifice. Suicide is a selfish attempt to dump all your problems on someone else. Self-sacrifice is taking other's problems upon yourself and dying for it.

This was the point of the thread there is no way to reconcile evil with the "Christian" God.


I am familiar with Leibniz and he covers only a very tiny portion of the full implications of Mackie's challenge.

As I said it was a Christian claim rather than a biblical one and I do recognize the maltheist answer to Mackie as valid.

Ok let me make this really simple. God is the author of a book the main character is Joe and and it is about his life. In God's mind he knows all the actions Joe will take before he takes them. From the characters stand point it seems like he chooses his own actions but while he is free to make any choice the author (God) already knows before page 1 what the character will have chosen.

God then takes the role of critic and condems the books because he doesn't like the ending but he knew what it would be before he started.


And if you kill your self no matter how friggin nobly you do it....its still suicide.

You left out the part where God tries to tell Joe time and again to turn his life around. He sends him messages, from the preacher, to his best buddy (who happens to be a Christian), to the striking beauty of a single flower that he wonders how evolution could ever have brought about, to the love of his faithful mother.....and yet Joe insists that his way is better. He doesn't listen. He refuses. And then he dies. And then God asks him why.

Suicide is the attempt to destroy yourself. Therefore, Jesus did not commit suicide, because, as it is written in Hebrews 12, he had the joy of being obedient to God set before him, and death was not the end.

This was the point of the thread there is no way to reconcile evil with the "Christian" God.

Evil is taking something good that God has given to you, and twisting it around and using it against him.

Evil can only exist in a world where God has given free will to someone else (rather than keeping it for himself).

I can't see why God and evil can't both exist.

This was the point of the thread there is no way to reconcile evil with the "Christian" God.



And that is a false statement. People explain it all the time, yet you guys keep asking as if the answer never was told :rolleyes:

It was injustice for God to create evil! He could have given us free will and no evil, he meerly had to create the potentential for evil, not evil itself.


But the removal of evil without meting out justice would be a contradiction. Removal of evil necessitates justice and punishment without an atonement for the sin. Also, we can have free will and non-evil choices...but nobody save Christ has been or will be ever able to do that.

I was injustice for God to create evil! He could have given us free will and no evil, he meerly had to create the potentential for evil, not evil itself.



He didn't create evil, he gave us free will and we created evil.

He didn't create evil, he gave us free will and we created evil.
We don’t truly create anything … we reorganize and shape but it has to be in existence for us to do such

We may have shaped evil but we could not have done so without the supposed god giving us all the materials so to speak

(not to mention that if we created evil how was Satan already in the garden deceiving us before the fall? Was he not disobeying god by doing so therefore separating himself from god and “sinning”?) so sin had to exist BEFORE we fell from grace

So humans have usurped the power of creation from God or did it spring into existance magicly? I though in the Christian Mythos only God could create?

He didn't create evil, he gave us free will and we created evil.

This was the point of the thread there is no way to reconcile evil with the "Christian" God.
Actually the thread began with the omniscience objection to free will.

And that is a false statement. People explain it all the time, yet you guys keep asking as if the answer never was told :rolleyes: Right, and the fact I stomped you flat when you tried to enter theodicies into it is just, what, an inconvenient fact in the way of your faith?

Right, and the fact I stomped you flat when you tried to enter theodicies into it is just, what, an inconvenient fact in the way of your faith?


You didn't. You just keep applying the standards of man to God and expecting us to follow that route. Sorry, it doesn't fly.

So humans have usurped the power of creation from God or did it spring into existance magicly? I though in the Christian Mythos only God could create?



Christian "Mythos?" I have a feeling that, having seen that statement, no matter what I say you will disagree :rolleyes:


The only argument I know of that supports the view that God is omnibenevolent in the sense of "perfectly good" is the one which points to Bible verses which show that God is perfect in all of his ways, which means that God must be perfect in whatever way he is good. Thus, the Bible verse I provided is the best evidence for an omnibenevolent God, in my opinion:



"As for God, his way is perfect" (Psalm 18:30)



Alternatively, if one doesn't accept that "omnibenevolent" means perfectly good, but instead means "goodness which is extended to, and through, all things," i.e., "all good," then one only has to point to verses which shows that God is everywhere, and in all things. Thus, if God is good, then his goodness is in all things, and thus he is omnibenevolent by that second definition, too.



"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:6)



"For of Him and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:36)

We don’t truly create anything … we reorganize and shape but it has to be in existence for us to do such

We may have shaped evil but we could not have done so without the supposed god giving us all the materials so to speak

(not to mention that if we created evil how was Satan already in the garden deceiving us before the fall? Was he not disobeying god by doing so therefore separating himself from god and “sinning”?) so sin had to exist BEFORE we fell from grace



Correct, I realized that about 15 seconds after posting but, since I'm lazy, I decided not to go to the trouble of editing it. Satan is the origin of evil, we mortals merely followed in his wicked paths.

He didn't create evil, he gave us free will and we created evil.
Let's cover this again.

We have God. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator.

God makes the choice to create.

Omniscience means he knows everything, and thus will be completely aware of all consequences of his actions.

Omnipotence means he has the power to actualize any universe he sees fit to actualize.

Therefore, during creation, God could actualize anything and knew the consequences of his actualization, all of them.

Some of the consequences of his creation were evil consequences and all evil consequences are caused by God's creation. After all, regardless of whether you believe in free will, had God not created their could be no evil, correct?

However, God was omniscient and knew he would be creating evil, was omnipotent and could have avoided creating evil if he so chose, and went ahead with creation when he created the universe in which evil would come to be.

Furthermore, in knowing all consequences of his creation, he knew all choices we would make because they too are a consequence of being created the way we were. He knew all our actions we would make when creating the universe and knew all actions we would make in any other universe he could conceive. Therefore when he actualized one of those universes, he cemented all future actions of humanity, thus destroying any semblance of free will.

Divine omniscience and omnipotence preclude free will and human created evil.

So you're a cafeteria Christian pick and choose the parts you like and drop the rest? Christ never said to stop being Jews.


When the preacher says that you should either buy it all, or none of it, I suppose he means that we should either do our best to live our lives according to how the book tells us that God wants us to live. He is warning against being lukewarm.

But that doesn't mean that we have to make a fire by burning human dung, as God told Ezekiel, and cook our food with it. But rather, we are to try to understand what is literal, and what isn't. Obviously, where the Psalmist writes that the trees and the rivers clap their hands in praise of the creator, it's not to be taken literally. But rather, the reader is invited to take a deeper look at why trees and rivers were made, what they do, what they mean, etc., etc., in the context of praising God.

Take the instruction to avoid eating pig flesh, for example. It is in the Bible. But it's not a Christian instruction. It was directed to the Jews. We are not told why, apart from that it is unclean. In the context of God instructing the people on how He was to be worshipped, it makes sense that it belongs to those set of instructions. However, the new testament apostles held a conference over whether the new Christians should observe all the old Jewish instructions. They came to the conclusion (in Acts 15) that they should abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. But circumcision was no longer seen as necessary, since it was an outward sign of the condition of the heart, but it was the condition of the heart that really mattered.

I doubt anyone today would accuse those old apostles of not really buying into all of Christianity. They paid for it with their blood.

Thats not even the point I object to. What bothers me most is the fact that Christianity is based, no born from death and martyrdom. If your so-called son of god hadn't died, their would be no religion. for catholics, it's said that you cannot be a saint while you are alive. While this makes some sense, this also means that a martyr will more likely be sainted than someone who didn't die.

So you're a cafeteria Christian pick and choose the parts you like and drop the rest? Christ never said to stop being Jews.

But by being Christian, you are automatically not being a Jew! Its amazing how little Christians know and understand about their roots. It is not possible to be Jewish and believe in Jesus.

I've even got a minster so mad he swung on me in his church. Just by asking about the bible.:D

Perhaps you have not met too many apologists.

Hell will be full with Christians.

You don't need to believe in it to go there...

What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.

God is the author and the critic in the Christain mythos, if fully rooted in the Bible humanity are just the hapless victims. God is you when you play the Sims you put the fireworks in the house and act surprised when they set a fire.


You left out the part where God tries to tell Joe time and again to turn his life around. He sends him messages, from the preacher, to his best buddy (who happens to be a Christian), to the striking beauty of a single flower that he wonders how evolution could ever have brought about, to the love of his faithful mother.....and yet Joe insists that his way is better. He doesn't listen. He refuses. And then he dies. And then God asks him why.

Suicide is the attempt to destroy yourself. Therefore, Jesus did not commit suicide, because, as it is written in Hebrews 12, he had the joy of being obedient to God set before him, and death was not the end.

An all powerful God could create a world with freewill and without evil.

Evil is taking something good that God has given to you, and twisting it around and using it against him.

Evil can only exist in a world where God has given free will to someone else (rather than keeping it for himself).

I can't see why God and evil can't both exist.

NO amout of theistic gymnastics truly reconciles it. You try, go ahead in your OWN words resolve Evil if there is a all powerfull, all knowing and all loving God.

And that is a false statement. People explain it all the time, yet you guys keep asking as if the answer never was told :rolleyes:

See! damn Christians confusing me on my on thread no less. ;) :eek:

Actually the thread began with the omniscience objection to free will.

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.

If He did that then we would loose our free will. And the Crucifixion wasn't suicide. That was the only was to reconcil man back to God. Telegram me if you want to talk/argue about this with me more

So you're a cafeteria Christian pick and choose the parts you like and drop the rest? Christ never said to stop being Jews.



He told us to stop adhering to the Law of Moses, except for a select few commandments. He gave us a new law.

From http://sguthrie.net/evil.htm



ASSESSING THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

by

Shandon L. Guthrie

I. INTRODUCTION

Contemporary news coverage bombards us with stories about enormous casualties and prodigious sufferings that occur in the world. Anyone can simply look to their neighbor or their own lives and see the presence of misfortune running rampant in one manifestation or another. This problem has impinged upon the issue of God's existence in religious philosophical discussions. Philosophers question whether or not there can be a wholly good God that would create such a world where evil exists. Thus arguments against the existence of God generally surface in two ways. Either the existence of God is logically incompatible with the evil in the world or the existence of God is improbable with respect to the amount of evil in the world.

For centuries, many have tried to dismiss the existence of God on the basis of the existence of evil. This particular pursuit is appropriately known as the problem of evil because of the implications produced by its presence. Theists who have disputed such arguments are said to be engaged in a theodicy, which is a scheme designed to disclose the compatibility between God and evil. There is no doubt that this is one of the most perplexing problems theists have to face. Therefore, I shall defend the contention that evil is not logically incompatible or improbable with God's existence.




II. NATURAL VS. MORAL EVIL

As with any discussion, a clear understanding about the categorization of a topic needs to be conveyed. Generally, philosophers have divided the definition of evil into two camps: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil occurs when natural disasters or causes inflict suffering. (1) This particular definition denotes suffering caused by such things as earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, diseases, crashes, and other destructive events. The English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, calls God's existence into question simply because of such evils:




Not even on the most distorted and contracted theory of good which

ever was framed by religious or philosophical fanaticism, can the government

of Nature be made to resemble the work of a being at once good and

omnipotent. (2)



For Mill, the problem of natural evil is so intense that associating the "government of Nature" with creation by a good and all-powerful God is unthinkable. In other cases evil is addressed in the context of poor moral decision-making. That is, we have a basic awareness that one can and does act in a morally evil manner. Moral evil is differentiated from natural evil because it is generally understood as "evil that springs from the human will." (3) This is an interesting variable in the role of evil. If we have the presence of "will" then we have as a necessary condition the presence of decision. Thus each person who acts morally evil is said to be a moral agent by instigating acts generally regarded as such.

We must now inquire as to whether or not there are any stipulations or exceptions with which to be aware. Objections to the existence of God from evil concentrate on the attributes of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent deity (typically modeled by the Christian perspective). Thus the logical incompatibility thesis goes something like this:




p1: God is omnipotent and wholly good.

p2: If evil exists then God does not exist.

p3: Evil exists.

C: Therefore, God does not exist.




A modification of this argument that attacks God's omnipotence as well as His omnibenevolence may be called the Epicurean argument from evil which is echoed here by empiricist philosopher David Hume:




Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?

then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able

and willing? whence then is evil? (4)




The non-theist suspects that given the presence of evil (a fact none of us tend to deny) then God either willfully permits evil, unwillingly permits evil, or woefully permits evil with some sort of capricious tendencies in mind. But God is supposed to be omnibenevolent. Thus we would expect God would create a world in which evil did not exist. If God created a world in which initial conditions were perfect and free from corruption then, given such a possible world, we as human beings would be able to freely live the life in such a state. After all, if it's God's world then why didn't He create all of us with inclinations toward perfectly good actions?

Non-theists have typically abandoned the idea that God is directly responsible for creating evil. And the logical incompatibility thesis merely attacks the concepts of God and evil and promotes their incompatibility regardless of how evil came about. If there is any doubt as to the nature of evil, the medieval Christian philosopher Augustine suggests that:




For such evil is not a substance; the wound or the disease is a defect

of the bodily substance which, as a substance, is good. Evil, then, is

an accident, i.e., a privation of that good which is called health. Thus

whatever defects there are in a soul are privations of a natural good. (5)




Any gainsaying of theism based on a positive ontology for evil could be dismissed based on this definition. Evil, therefore, is not a substance created by God but a deficiency that free creatures display when immoral decisions occur. But some contend that on a Christian understanding all of creation is subject to the providence of God. So there should not be any presence of evil because God must preclude its existence by virtue of His omnibenevolent nature, so the argument goes.

The inferential (or probabilistic) problem of evil manifests in a different route. Instead of making the strong thesis that God's existence and evil's existence are mutually exclusive, other philosophers suggest the more modest proposal that God's existence is unlikely given the presence of evil. The argument can be stated as follows:



p1: God is omnipotent and wholly good.

p2: There is a possible world where there is less evil than the actual world.

p3: God would want to bring about a possible world with the least amount of evil

[from p1].

p4: God created the actual world instead of one in which evil could be reduced.

C: Therefore, a God that is omnipotent and wholly good probably does not exist.



Although premise 4 is dubious, the crucial premise of this argument is premise 3 because it assumes that God has no overriding desire other than reducing the evil in the world. Other than this, the fact that premise 2 is logically possible means that premise 4 is quite possible. If God could have reduced the evil that this actual world contains then this would render the notion of an all-good God as questionable. For example, the notable atheist William Rowe suggests that there are rational grounds to think that instances of seemingly pointless evil can be reduced. He says that "It seems quite unlikely that all the instances of intense suffering occurring daily in our world are ultimately related to the occurrence of greater goods or the prevention of evils at least as bad." (6)



III. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

The force of the logical argument from evil is given much weight upon one main presupposition: the presence of goodness logically excludes the possibility of the presence of evil. In many ways this seems to make sense. For example, the presence of light excludes the possibility that there is the presence of darkness at the same time. In this section I shall deal with the Epicurean/Humean argument against God's existence from the perspective that God and evil are somehow logically incompatible.

The first premise suggesting that "God is omnipotent and wholly good" is not logically incompatible on the surface with the premise acknowledging "Evil exists." When we speak of logical compatibility we mean the ability of two isolated claims to be non-contradictory when true simultaneously. For example, if we give two statements and consider them to both be true then we do not consider that a contradiction can arise between them. Consider this example:



(P) Sam runs faster than a cheetah.

(Q) A cheetah runs faster than Sam.



At first glance it appears that both statements cannot both be true at the same time and become, hence, logically incompatible. If we suggest that Sam runs faster than a cheetah then it follows that the reverse cannot be true.




C(s) > S(s)



This formula symbolizes the speed (s) of the cheetah (C) as being greater than the speed of Sam (S) But is this a clear example of logical incompatibility? Not by necessity. Notice that statements P and Q refer to a cheetah and not to any one particular cheetah. Let's say that Sam can run faster than a cheetah with a limp, but that a cheetah without a limp can run faster than Sam. Here we have a reconciliation with statements P and Q. Therefore, if we can at least imagine or stipulate that the cheetah in (P) is not the same cheetah in (Q) then we cannot say that the two statements are logically incompatible. In order for a statement to be logically incompatible it must be mutually exclusive. This means that "A" and "~A" cannot both be true. "God exists" and "God does not exist" are mutually exclusive and logically incompatible statements since both cannot be true about the world at the same time. The incompatibility thesis is just as evasive as the cheetah example. So there must be some hidden statements or principles that could connect "Evil exists" with "an omnipotent and wholly God exists" and bring out their contradiction. The late atheist of Oxford University, J. L. Mackie, says that



These additional principles are that good is opposed to evil, in such a

way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there

are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. From these it follows

that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the

propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists,

are incompatible. (7)



Is Mackie correct to think that there exists a logical contradiction between the goodness of God and the existence of evil entailed by the logical problem of evil? Similar to the cheetah example, if we posit that it is at least feasible or imaginable that both evil and God could exist then there is no logical incompatibility. Thus it is sufficient to simply imagine a way to provide coexistence for God and evil. If such a scenario can at least be imagined then there is no logical contradiction. First, it must be understood that God either created evil or permitted it to exist, so we at least affirm:





(1) God permits evil.




As we have seen evil is not an object of God's creation so that evil exists by permission. But there must also be a context for the permission of evil itself. Perhaps it is true that:




(2) God uses evil to maximize the amount of good in the universe.



Now we have a possible coexistence for evil and God. For example, natural disasters are physically necessary for sustaining the living conditions of earth. Earthquakes, presumably naturally evil occurrences, cause many people to die. However, earthquakes are necessary in plate tectonics in order to keep our continents from eroding into the ocean. The stress builds up in the rocks causing a release through fracturing at the seismic focus. (8) But if this did not occur then we would surely not be here at all to discuss it. Again, this does not need to be true, it only needs to be feasible or possible. But what about moral evil? Suppose that demonic beings are the creators and instigators of all moral evil. This means that evil is created by agents other than God. Moreover, perhaps God permits this because every world in which it is feasible for God to create (where there exists an optimal balance of good over evil) such demonic agents always cause moral evil. Now, this is probably more akin to Greek Mythology than to organized religious systems today and nobody really believes that demons cause all evil. However, it is only sufficient to suggest a possibility for the concurrence of evil and God. Since it is feasible then it follows that evil does not logically preclude the existence of God and, thus, God's existence is preserved. Therefore, given the presence of evil, we must at least in thought (as long as they are not logically incompatible) suppose that God and evil can coexist. (9) So much for the logical problem of evil.




IV. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INFERENTIAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

Unlike the logical problem of evil, the advocate of the inferential or probabilistic problem of evil only suggests that evil would be reduced more than what the actual world contains. Since the world does not contain minimized evil (for one can think of situations in which suffering is short-lived or reduced) then God probably does not exist. There are three main responses that philosophers have utilized in addressing this problem.

1. Since God's methodology in permitting evil is inscrutable, then one cannot object to God's existence in the presence of evil. Many have taken the position that the world we live in is far too complex and delicately balanced for it to be any other way. If one event were to be altered, then such a disturbed consequence may preclude this world from having the same amount of good in it with a minimum amount of evil . So suggesting why God would allow evil is viewed as similar to suggesting why God would choose to part the Red Sea for Moses instead of simply evaporating it. Both accomplish the same task of allowing the Israelites to pass through the Red Sea. But if God were to fulfill another part of His plan by destroying the Egyptian pursuers in the collapse of the parted Red Sea waters, then evaporation would not be the preferred choice. Thus God's decision to choose parting the Red Sea instead of evaporating would be considered inscrutable. God is said to be inscrutable when no direct knowledge is ascertained as to why God would permit or cause a specific event. (10) When considering a scenario that such inscrutability envisages, it seems as though one really cannot begin to find a way in which a possible world, one with the same amount of good in it but with no or little evil, is even feasible. Now this seems to show that the non-theist goes beyond what is known or can be known in order to reject the existence of God on the basis of evil. Consider the claim that non-theists usually make when they say that God could create the same effects that exist in our world currently but with good causes in place of evil ones. I do not think that we can make this sort of conjecture for reasons exemplified in our physical laws. Our universe is interwoven with a delicate balance of interrelated causal chains. If we were to disturb one link in any causal chain, whether it be through time, space, or both, then serious repercussions would result. For example, chaos theory suggests that if a butterfly were to flutter its wings then certain weather conditions may be altered in another part of the world. This is called the butterfly effect. (11) Given such a sensitive and delicate relation between two (or more) events, perhaps the causal chains that exist are far too complex to hypothesize an alternate world in which evil events do not contribute to good ones. Since no one can speculate how to have a better world than the actual one then the inferential problem of evil loses its probability.

2. The presence of evil may actually contribute to the goodness of the whole of creation. Although this was capitalized on in addressing the logical problem of evil above, there are further reasons to consider evil as a possible link in the chain of maximally good events. And the only reason why God would want to allow evil in His plan of creation is if He had an overriding desire. Typically, theists affirm that God has such an overriding desire, namely that people are brought to a point of spiritual well-being or salvation. With respect to this as God's primary motivation, the existence of evil is not so problematic. In fact, it seems to be quite instrumental given that there seems to be a correlation between immense suffering and pain and belief in God. If suffering yields up more believers in God for their spiritual well-being then it should not at all seem dubious that God would permit evil. Moreover, the presence of evil may actually have a spiritually therapeutic effect. Certainly everyone has said or has heard a parent say to a child, "I spanked you because I love you." In the same way evil may be seen as an instrument of God to "correct, purify, and instruct." (12) Thus God may use evil as a way to advance someone's ability to do good. If a child is disciplined then perhaps she will refrain from committing the same "evil" again. Likewise, a morally irresponsible person develops moral responsibility through the evil inflicted as a consequence of doing morally irresponsible things. Such notable theists as Irenaeus and contemporary philosopher of religion, John Hick, utilize this particular theodicy. Hick says that "in removing all occurrences of pain and suffering, and hence all challenge and all need for mutual care, we should have converted the world from a person-making into a static environment, which could not elicit moral growth." (13)

The usual comeback by critics generally revolves around a possible world in which a causally linked chain of events does not include evil ones. After all, if God is omniscient (all-knowing) then He would know how to construct a world in which the same good events occur but without the evil antecedents. This leads us to the final objection to the inferential problem of evil we have to consider.

3. A world without evil may not be a feasible world for individuals who possess free will (the Free Will Defense). Perhaps the most debated issue on the question of evil is whether or not evil is a necessary precondition for individuals who possess free will. Such notable figures as St. Augustine have taken such an approach to the problem of evil. (14) Others have taken a more effective approach. Professor of philosophy at Notre Dame, Alvin Plantinga, suggests that "there may be a very different kind of good that God can't bring about without permitting evil. These are good states of affairs that do not include evil . . . nonetheless God Himself can't bring them about without permitting evil." (15) This is called the Free Will Defense. Critics suggest that perhaps God could have created a possible world without evil and without infringing upon free will by constituting people to always freely choose the good. After all, this is a possible world. But is this a feasible world for God to create? Consider what this suggests:



(3) Everyone always freely chooses to do good acts.

(4) God constitutes everyone to freely choose good acts.

(5) Free will exists.

(6) God exists.



But surely there is something wrong with statement (4) for it entails that no one can do otherwise but to always choose the good. But if no one can choose otherwise then no ability to choose really exists. Therefore, free will does not exist here. True freedom of the will in regard to moral decision-making entails that the agent must be able to choose otherwise. If God constitutes everyone to always choose the good then the act is ultimately brought about by God directly. The second problem of eliminating evil in the equation of moral decision-making is that justice is not being served. Would it make sense to send a Jeffrey Dahmer to prison if his acts were orchestrated by a mind chip? It seems that the faculty of free will is required. But with free will comes the possibility of bad choices (evil ones). This ultimately leads to a full freedom of the agent to genuinely decide between two palpable options: good and evil. Moreover,




(7) It is possible that God could not have actualized a world containing moral


good without one that also contained moral evil. (16)



The theist could rightly argue that because statement (7) is possible then there is no reason to think that God could create a world such that all persons freely choose to do only good.

Therefore, it may not be feasible for God to create a possible world where only good actions exist. It may be that every time God chooses to create a possible world where only good exists, the free creatures rebel and introduce evil into the world. It is surely not the answer to suggest that God make all persons freely choose the good. Such a world eliminates what it truly means to be free to choose. (17) Thus the theist has a reasonable defense against the inferential problem of evil.




V. CONCLUSION

The problem of evil has been a plaguing issue for theists ever since the concept of God became an object of academic discourse. However, we have seen how two versions of the problem of evil do not sufficiently render theism either impossible or improbable. First, the logical problem of evil sought to diminish the possibility of God's existence via logical incompatibility. But it is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. So the existence of God and the existence of evil are not logically incompatible after all. Secondly, the inferential/probabilistic problem of evil is more modest because it denies the probable existence of God given that there may be better solutions to the amount of evil in the actual world. However, there is no reason to think that God does not have overriding desires surpassing the protection of free creatures from harm. Therefore, the problem of evil remains to be an emotional issue because it is the impact of pain and suffering in each of our lives that truly casts doubt on the existence of God. I submit that upon closer inspection the existence of God fairs well against the problems evinced by evil.

Is there any thing in the Bible that actually says God is all loving or even just loving, in so many words?


Christian "Mythos?" I have a feeling that, having seen that statement, no matter what I say you will disagree :rolleyes:


The only argument I know of that supports the view that God is omnibenevolent in the sense of "perfectly good" is the one which points to Bible verses which show that God is perfect in all of his ways, which means that God must be perfect in whatever way he is good. Thus, the Bible verse I provided is the best evidence for an omnibenevolent God, in my opinion:



"As for God, his way is perfect" (Psalm 18:30)



Alternatively, if one doesn't accept that "omnibenevolent" means perfectly good, but instead means "goodness which is extended to, and through, all things," i.e., "all good," then one only has to point to verses which shows that God is everywhere, and in all things. Thus, if God is good, then his goodness is in all things, and thus he is omnibenevolent by that second definition, too.



"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:6)



"For of Him and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:36)

So what exactly is this "new law" ?

He told us to stop adhering to the Law of Moses, except for a select few commandments. He gave us a new law.

So what exactly is this "new law" ?


Read the New Testament, I'm not posting several hundred pages of scriptures -.-

Neo Rogolia - I thought you were female? I know as a female I sure as heck wouldn't want to have to live by biblical oppression, mostly against women! I could perhaps understand why a man might like the idea, but never a woman.

Please, next time less bullshit ....


From http://sguthrie.net/evil.htm



ASSESSING THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

by

Shandon L. Guthrie

I. INTRODUCTION

Contemporary news coverage bombards us with stories about enormous casualties and prodigious sufferings that occur in the world. Anyone can simply look to their neighbor or their own lives and see the presence of misfortune running rampant in one manifestation or another. This problem has impinged upon the issue of God's existence in religious philosophical discussions. Philosophers question whether or not there can be a wholly good God that would create such a world where evil exists. Thus arguments against the existence of God generally surface in two ways. Either the existence of God is logically incompatible with the evil in the world or the existence of God is improbable with respect to the amount of evil in the world.

For centuries, many have tried to dismiss the existence of God on the basis of the existence of evil. This particular pursuit is appropriately known as the problem of evil because of the implications produced by its presence. Theists who have disputed such arguments are said to be engaged in a theodicy, which is a scheme designed to disclose the compatibility between God and evil. There is no doubt that this is one of the most perplexing problems theists have to face. Therefore, I shall defend the contention that evil is not logically incompatible or improbable with God's existence.




II. NATURAL VS. MORAL EVIL

As with any discussion, a clear understanding about the categorization of a topic needs to be conveyed. Generally, philosophers have divided the definition of evil into two camps: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil occurs when natural disasters or causes inflict suffering. (1) This particular definition denotes suffering caused by such things as earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, diseases, crashes, and other destructive events. The English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, calls God's existence into question simply because of such evils:




Not even on the most distorted and contracted theory of good which

ever was framed by religious or philosophical fanaticism, can the government

of Nature be made to resemble the work of a being at once good and

omnipotent. (2)



For Mill, the problem of natural evil is so intense that associating the "government of Nature" with creation by a good and all-powerful God is unthinkable. In other cases evil is addressed in the context of poor moral decision-making. That is, we have a basic awareness that one can and does act in a morally evil manner. Moral evil is differentiated from natural evil because it is generally understood as "evil that springs from the human will." (3) This is an interesting variable in the role of evil. If we have the presence of "will" then we have as a necessary condition the presence of decision. Thus each person who acts morally evil is said to be a moral agent by instigating acts generally regarded as such.

We must now inquire as to whether or not there are any stipulations or exceptions with which to be aware. Objections to the existence of God from evil concentrate on the attributes of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent deity (typically modeled by the Christian perspective). Thus the logical incompatibility thesis goes something like this:




p1: God is omnipotent and wholly good.

p2: If evil exists then God does not exist.

p3: Evil exists.

C: Therefore, God does not exist.




A modification of this argument that attacks God's omnipotence as well as His omnibenevolence may be called the Epicurean argument from evil which is echoed here by empiricist philosopher David Hume:




Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?

then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able

and willing? whence then is evil? (4)




The non-theist suspects that given the presence of evil (a fact none of us tend to deny) then God either willfully permits evil, unwillingly permits evil, or woefully permits evil with some sort of capricious tendencies in mind. But God is supposed to be omnibenevolent. Thus we would expect God would create a world in which evil did not exist. If God created a world in which initial conditions were perfect and free from corruption then, given such a possible world, we as human beings would be able to freely live the life in such a state. After all, if it's God's world then why didn't He create all of us with inclinations toward perfectly good actions?

Non-theists have typically abandoned the idea that God is directly responsible for creating evil. And the logical incompatibility thesis merely attacks the concepts of God and evil and promotes their incompatibility regardless of how evil came about. If there is any doubt as to the nature of evil, the medieval Christian philosopher Augustine suggests that:




For such evil is not a substance; the wound or the disease is a defect

of the bodily substance which, as a substance, is good. Evil, then, is

an accident, i.e., a privation of that good which is called health. Thus

whatever defects there are in a soul are privations of a natural good. (5)




Any gainsaying of theism based on a positive ontology for evil could be dismissed based on this definition. Evil, therefore, is not a substance created by God but a deficiency that free creatures display when immoral decisions occur. Evil as absence of good But some contend that on a Christian understanding all of creation is subject to the providence of God. So there should not be any presence of evil because God must preclude its existence by virtue of His omnibenevolent nature, so the argument goes.

The inferential (or probabilistic) problem of evil manifests in a different route. Instead of making the strong thesis that God's existence and evil's existence are mutually exclusive, other philosophers suggest the more modest proposal that God's existence is unlikely given the presence of evil. The argument can be stated as follows:



p1: God is omnipotent and wholly good.

p2: There is a possible world where there is less evil than the actual world.

p3: God would want to bring about a possible world with the least amount of evil

[from p1].

p4: God created the actual world instead of one in which evil could be reduced.

C: Therefore, a God that is omnipotent and wholly good probably does not exist.



Although premise 4 is dubious, the crucial premise of this argument is premise 3 because it assumes that God has no overriding desire other than reducing the evil in the world. Other than this, the fact that premise 2 is logically possible means that premise 4 is quite possible. If God could have reduced the evil that this actual world contains then this would render the notion of an all-good God as questionable. For example, the notable atheist William Rowe suggests that there are rational grounds to think that instances of seemingly pointless evil can be reduced. He says that "It seems quite unlikely that all the instances of intense suffering occurring daily in our world are ultimately related to the occurrence of greater goods or the prevention of evils at least as bad." (6)



III. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

The force of the logical argument from evil is given much weight upon one main presupposition: the presence of goodness logically excludes the possibility of the presence of evil. In many ways this seems to make sense. For example, the presence of light excludes the possibility that there is the presence of darkness at the same time. In this section I shall deal with the Epicurean/Humean argument against God's existence from the perspective that God and evil are somehow logically incompatible.

The first premise suggesting that "God is omnipotent and wholly good" is not logically incompatible on the surface with the premise acknowledging "Evil exists." When we speak of logical compatibility we mean the ability of two isolated claims to be non-contradictory when true simultaneously. For example, if we give two statements and consider them to both be true then we do not consider that a contradiction can arise between them. Consider this example:



(P) Sam runs faster than a cheetah.

(Q) A cheetah runs faster than Sam.



At first glance it appears that both statements cannot both be true at the same time and become, hence, logically incompatible. If we suggest that Sam runs faster than a cheetah then it follows that the reverse cannot be true.




C(s) > S(s)



This formula symbolizes the speed (s) of the cheetah (C) as being greater than the speed of Sam (S) But is this a clear example of logical incompatibility? Not by necessity. Notice that statements P and Q refer to a cheetah and not to any one particular cheetah. Let's say that Sam can run faster than a cheetah with a limp, but that a cheetah without a limp can run faster than Sam. Here we have a reconciliation with statements P and Q. Therefore, if we can at least imagine or stipulate that the cheetah in (P) is not the same cheetah in (Q) then we cannot say that the two statements are logically incompatible. In order for a statement to be logically incompatible it must be mutually exclusive. This means that "A" and "~A" cannot both be true. "God exists" and "God does not exist" are mutually exclusive and logically incompatible statements since both cannot be true about the world at the same time. The incompatibility thesis is just as evasive as the cheetah example. So there must be some hidden statements or principles that could connect "Evil exists" with "an omnipotent and wholly God exists" and bring out their contradiction. The late atheist of Oxford University, J. L. Mackie, says that



These additional principles are that good is opposed to evil, in such a

way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there

are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. From these it follows

that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the

propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists,

are incompatible. (7)



Is Mackie correct to think that there exists a logical contradiction between the goodness of God and the existence of evil entailed by the logical problem of evil? Similar to the cheetah example, if we posit that it is at least feasible or imaginable that both evil and God could exist then there is no logical incompatibility. Thus it is sufficient to simply imagine a way to provide coexistence for God and evil. If such a scenario can at least be imagined then there is no logical contradiction. First, it must be understood that God either created evil or permitted it to exist, so we at least affirm:





(1) God permits evil.




As we have seen evil is not an object of God's creation so that evil exists by permission. But there must also be a context for the permission of evil itself. Perhaps it is true that:




(2) God uses evil to maximize the amount of good in the universe. What Bullshit! God is Machivelli



Now we have a possible coexistence for evil and God. For example, natural disasters are physically necessary for sustaining the living conditions of earth. Earthquakes, presumably naturally evil occurrences, cause many people to die. However, earthquakes are necessary in plate tectonics in order to keep our continents from eroding into the ocean. The stress builds up in the rocks causing a release through fracturing at the seismic focus. (8) But if this did not occur then we would surely not be here at all to discuss it. Again, this does not need to be true, it only needs to be feasible or possible.What utter shit in a evul free world plate techtonic would not cause earth quakes But what about moral evil? Suppose that demonic beings are the creators and instigators of all moral evil. This means that evil is created by agents other than God. Moreover, perhaps God permits this because every world in which it is feasible for God to create (where there exists an optimal balance of good over evil) such demonic agents always cause moral evil. Now, this is probably more akin to Greek Mythology than to organized religious systems today and nobody really believes that demons cause all evil. However, it is only sufficient to suggest a possibility for the concurrence of evil and God. Since it is feasible then it follows that evil does not logically preclude the existence of God and, thus, God's existence is preserved. Therefore, given the presence of evil, we must at least in thought (as long as they are not logically incompatible) suppose that God and evil can coexist. (9) So much for the logical problem of evil.Crap and doublespeak he doesn't solve the problem he side steps it in a cloud of elecution!




IV. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INFERENTIAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

Unlike the logical problem of evil, the advocate of the inferential or probabilistic problem of evil only suggests that evil would be reduced more than what the actual world contains. Since the world does not contain minimized evil (for one can think of situations in which suffering is short-lived or reduced) then God probably does not exist. There are three main responses that philosophers have utilized in addressing this problem.

1. Since God's methodology in permitting evil is inscrutable, then one cannot object to God's existence in the presence of evil. Many have taken the position that the world we live in is far too complex and delicately balanced for it to be any other way. If one event were to be altered, then such a disturbed consequence may preclude this world from having the same amount of good in it with a minimum amount of evil . So suggesting why God would allow evil is viewed as similar to suggesting why God would choose to part the Red Sea for Moses instead of simply evaporating it. Both accomplish the same task of allowing the Israelites to pass through the Red Sea. But if God were to fulfill another part of His plan by destroying the Egyptian pursuers in the collapse of the parted Red Sea waters, then evaporation would not be the preferred choice. Thus God's decision to choose parting the Red Sea instead of evaporating would be considered inscrutable. God is said to be inscrutable when no direct knowledge is ascertained as to why God would permit or cause a specific event. (10) When considering a scenario that such inscrutability envisages, it seems as though one really cannot begin to find a way in which a possible world, one with the same amount of good in it but with no or little evil, is even feasible. Now this seems to show that the non-theist goes beyond what is known or can be known in order to reject the existence of God on the basis of evil. Consider the claim that non-theists usually make when they say that God could create the same effects that exist in our world currently but with good causes in place of evil ones. I do not think that we can make this sort of conjecture for reasons exemplified in our physical laws. Our universe is interwoven with a delicate balance of interrelated causal chains. If we were to disturb one link in any causal chain, whether it be through time, space, or both, then serious repercussions would result. For example, chaos theory suggests that if a butterfly were to flutter its wings then certain weather conditions may be altered in another part of the world. This is called the butterfly effect. (11) Given such a sensitive and delicate relation between two (or more) events, perhaps the causal chains that exist are far too complex to hypothesize an alternate world in which evil events do not contribute to good ones. Since no one can speculate how to have a better world than the actual one then the inferential problem of evil loses its probability.

2. The presence of evil may actually contribute to the goodness of the whole of creation. Although this was capitalized on in addressing the logical problem of evil above, there are further reasons to consider evil as a possible link in the chain of maximally good events. And the only reason why God would want to allow evil in His plan of creation is if He had an overriding desire. Typically, theists affirm that God has such an overriding desire, namely that people are brought to a point of spiritual well-being or salvation. With respect to this as God's primary motivation, the existence of evil is not so problematic. In fact, it seems to be quite instrumental given that there seems to be a correlation between immense suffering and pain and belief in God. If suffering yields up more believers in God for their spiritual well-being then it should not at all seem dubious that God would permit evil. Moreover, the presence of evil may actually have a spiritually therapeutic effect. Certainly everyone has said or has heard a parent say to a child, "I spanked you because I love you." In the same way evil may be seen as an instrument of God to "correct, purify, and instruct." (12) Thus God may use evil as a way to advance someone's ability to do good. If a child is disciplined then perhaps she will refrain from committing the same "evil" again. Likewise, a morally irresponsible person develops moral responsibility through the evil inflicted as a consequence of doing morally irresponsible things. Such notable theists as Irenaeus and contemporary philosopher of religion, John Hick, utilize this particular theodicy. Hick says that "in removing all occurrences of pain and suffering, and hence all challenge and all need for mutual care, we should have converted the world from a person-making into a static environment, which could not elicit moral growth." (13)

The usual comeback by critics generally revolves around a possible world in which a causally linked chain of events does not include evil ones. After all, if God is omniscient (all-knowing) then He would know how to construct a world in which the same good events occur but without the evil antecedents. This leads us to the final objection to the inferential problem of evil we have to consider.

3. A world without evil may not be a feasible world for individuals who possess free will (the Free Will Defense). Perhaps the most debated issue on the question of evil is whether or not evil is a necessary precondition for individuals who possess free will. Such notable figures as St. Augustine have taken such an approach to the problem of evil. (14) Others have taken a more effective approach. Professor of philosophy at Notre Dame, Alvin Plantinga, suggests that "there may be a very different kind of good that God can't bring about without permitting evil. These are good states of affairs that do not include evil . . . nonetheless God Himself can't bring them about without permitting evil." (15) This is called the Free Will Defense. Critics suggest that perhaps God could have created a possible world without evil and without infringing upon free will by constituting people to always freely choose the good. After all, this is a possible world. But is this a feasible world for God to create? Consider what this suggests:



(3) Everyone always freely chooses to do good acts.

(4) God constitutes everyone to freely choose good acts.

(5) Free will exists.

(6) God exists.



But surely there is something wrong with statement (4) for it entails that no one can do otherwise but to always choose the good. But if no one can choose otherwise then no ability to choose really exists. Therefore, free will does not exist here. True freedom of the will in regard to moral decision-making entails that the agent must be able to choose otherwise. If God constitutes everyone to always choose the good then the act is ultimately brought about by God directly. The second problem of eliminating evil in the equation of moral decision-making is that justice is not being served. Would it make sense to send a Jeffrey Dahmer to prison if his acts were orchestrated by a mind chip? It seems that the faculty of free will is required. But with free will comes the possibility of bad choices (evil ones). This ultimately leads to a full freedom of the agent to genuinely decide between two palpable options: good and evil. Moreover,




(7) It is possible that God could not have actualized a world containing moral


good without one that also contained moral evil. (16)



The theist could rightly argue that because statement (7) is possible then there is no reason to think that God could create a world such that all persons freely choose to do only good.

Therefore, it may not be feasible for God to create a possible world where only good actions exist. It may be that every time God chooses to create a possible world where only good exists, the free creatures rebel and introduce evil into the world. It is surely not the answer to suggest that God make all persons freely choose the good. Such a world eliminates what it truly means to be free to choose. (17) Thus the theist has a reasonable defense against the inferential problem of evil.




V. CONCLUSION

The problem of evil has been a plaguing issue for theists ever since the concept of God became an object of academic discourse. However, we have seen how two versions of the problem of evil do not sufficiently render theism either impossible or improbable. First, the logical problem of evil sought to diminish the possibility of God's existence via logical incompatibility. But it is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. So the existence of God and the existence of evil are not logically incompatible after all. Secondly, the inferential/probabilistic problem of evil is more modest because it denies the probable existence of God given that there may be better solutions to the amount of evil in the actual world. However, there is no reason to think that God does not have overriding desires surpassing the protection of free creatures from harm. Therefore, the problem of evil remains to be an emotional issue because it is the impact of pain and suffering in each of our lives that truly casts doubt on the existence of God. I submit that upon closer inspection the existence of God fairs well against the problems evinced by evil.

From http://sguthrie.net/evil.htm
<SNIP>



No need to copy the whole thing.

Part II is crap. It simply tries to redefine evil but the problem still remains. Whether it is an actual presence or merely a lack of good, it is still present and wouldn't be under the rule of a benevolent, all powerfull god.

Part III is a cricular argument as demonstrated here: "if we posit that it is at least feasible or imaginable that both evil and God could exist then there is no logical incompatibility." That is of course what they are trying to prove and yet they use it as an argument against Mackie.

Furthermore, it sinks itself when it states evil is a lack of good. If it is a lack of good, an omnipresent good, as God is stated to be, would exclude evil's existance from word go. The fact is that if it is a sliding scale and good is an absence of evil, the presence of good and evil are mutually exclusive unlike their cheetah analogy.

Further, the claim God uses evil to maximize good has been refuted numerous times because an omnipotent entity would not need it by his very nature. The refutation of the logical problem of evil thoroughly destroyed, we move on to part IV.

Part IV

Objections one and two limit's God's power dramatically, thus flies in the face of omnipotence.

Objection 3 brings us to the Free will defense which, is probably the best answer to the argument from evil given to date, but still not good enough.

If we are to accept the earlier points in this argument, sections 1-3, we must accept evil to be a non-entity and total contigent on a lack of good. Therefore, it is not a chocie between good and evil but a choice between good and less good. Therefore, if one were to kick the scale far enough back to make the all chocies between good and less good but at the same time we could eliminate all the choices considered evil. By adding greater choices than those available to us, we could retain the same number and variety of choices, thus sparing free will, and still avoid running into what the average person today would call evil.

If we do not accept the sliding scale model of morality, which we have no reason to other than this author's say so to do anyway, Good is an independant and seperate entity than that of evil and thus is not constrained by it anyway. God, being omnipotent can actualize one without the other.

If I give an otherwise average hungry man the chocie between being shot in the face and a ham sandwich, one is clearly good for the man, who is very hungry, and one is clearly bad for the man, who is not bulletproof. He has the free will to choose between the good and the bad, those being analagous to moral evil and moral good. If I change it and offer him his choice of ham or turkey sandwiches. He has as many option and as much capacity to choose as before but the choices are both good. Free choice does not hinge on having a bad option, it hinges on simply having options, good, bad, or otherwise.

No need to copy the whole thing.

Part II is crap. It simply tries to redefine evil but the problem still remains. Whether it is an actual presence or merely a lack of good, it is still present and wouldn't be under the rule of a benevolent, all powerfull god.

Part III is a cricular argument as demonstrated here: "if we posit that it is at least feasible or imaginable that both evil and God could exist then there is no logical incompatibility." That is of course what they are trying to prove and yet they use it as an argument against Mackie.

Furthermore, it sinks itself when it states evil is a lack of good. If it is a lack of good, an omnipresent good, as God is stated to be, would exclude evil's existance from word go. The fact is that if it is a sliding scale and good is an absence of evil, the presence of good and evil are mutually exclusive unlike their cheetah analogy.

Further, the claim God uses evil to maximize good has been refuted numerous times because an omnipotent entity would not need it by his very nature. The refutation of the logical problem of evil thoroughly destroyed, we move on to part IV.

Part IV

Objections one and two limit's God's power dramatically, thus flies in the face of omnipotence.

Objection 3 brings us to the Free will defense which, is probably the best answer to the argument from evil given to date, but still not good enough.

If we are to accept the earlier points in this argument, sections 1-3, we must accept evil to be a non-entity and total contigent on a lack of good. Therefore, it is not a chocie between good and evil but a choice between good and less good. Therefore, if one were to kick the scale far enough back to make the all chocies between good and less good but at the same time we could eliminate all the choices considered evil. By adding greater choices than those available to us, we could retain the same number and variety of choices, thus sparing free will, and still avoid running into what the average person today would call evil.

If we do not accept the sliding scale model of morality, which we have no reason to other than this author's say so to do anyway, Good is an independant and seperate entity than that of evil and thus is not constrained by it anyway. God, being omnipotent can actualize one without the other.

If I give an otherwise average hungry man the chocie between being shot in the face and a ham sandwich, one is clearly good for the man, who is very hungry, and one is clearly bad for the man, who is not bulletproof. He has the free will to choose between the good and the bad, those being analagous to moral evil and moral good. If I change it and offer him his choice of ham or turkey sandwiches. He has as many option and as much capacity to choose as before but the choices are both good. Free choice does not hinge on having a bad option, it hinges on simply having options, good, bad, or otherwise.



Last paragraph: False in application to good/evil. God gives us the choice to love Him and follow His will, if we only had different choices as to how we would go about loving Him then it is not free will. Free will implies the choice of deciding to not love Him. Free will would be purposeless without it.

1)Faith =|= logic.

2) Free will = the ability to choose one's actions. And people choose foolishly all the time. See: Jerry Springer Show, Montel Williams Show, Ricki Lake Show, Oprah Winfrey Show.....

Basically, our ability to choose (morally or immorally) separates us from mind controlled slaves.
You've maybe missed the point of his post. If god is omniscient then he knows who will choose good and who will choose evil before they're even born. Why couldn't he just prevent the births of those who would choose evil and spare them an eternity of hell?

God wouldn't be eliminating free choice, just selecting those who make the right choice out from those who will make the wrong one before any damage is done.

Last paragraph: False in application to good/evil. God gives us the choice to love Him and follow His will, if we only had different choices as to how we would go about loving Him then it is not free will. Free will implies the choice of deciding to not love Him. Free will would be purposeless without it.

Limiting the extent we can disobey does not limit free will. The fact we are limited in just how far we can disobey God's will by the laws of physics among other things is proof of this if you are a Christian. Furthermore, returning once again to the omniscience objection to free will, it infers that the people destined to not love god were in fact destined to not love God because god made it that way.

Limiting the extent we can disobey does not limit free will. The fact we are limited in just how far we can disobey God's will by the laws of physics among other things is proof of this if you are a Christian. Furthermore, returning once again to the omniscience objection to free will, it infers that the people destined to not love god were in fact destined to not love God because god made it that way.



I believe we've had a trillion debates on how prior knowledge does not equate to predestination.

You've maybe missed the point of his post. If god is omniscient then he knows who will choose good and who will choose evil before they're even born. Why couldn't he just prevent the births of those who would choose evil and spare them an eternity of hell?

God wouldn't be eliminating free choice, just selecting those who make the right choice out from those who will make the wrong one before any damage is done.


Preventing the birth of those who would not accept His will would conflict with free will.