NationStates Jolt Archive

Sure it does. Since there is no onjective way to detemine whther or not there's an afterlife, we must take the word of a creature who's word cannot be trusted (since he doesn't have to follow any rules) that there is an afterlife. Since this life is the only objective reference we have, by default we must judge acts of either god or man by the reality we know. If god kills, ergo, by the definitions we can rationally subscribe to, god is evil. He destroys life, which for all we may know, may be all we have. Sounds pretty evil to me.



Your logic is flawed:


1. If a mother tells her child "No more than one sweet a day", is she obligated to follow it herself? No, because the rule does not apply to her. She already knows what is best, and therefore has the right to implement a policy for her human protectorate to follow, without having to follow it herself.

2. We do not judge God at all. We cannot comprehend His true nature, therefore any judgements we make that are extraneous to His own statements about His nature have a 99.9999999999999999~% probability of being false in one way or another.

3. God cannot be evil, as it is contrary to his very nature.

4. What we know or don't know doesn't affect that which is, therefore, assuming God exists, if we delude ourselves into believing our own opinions instead of those of an omniscient entity, it does not determine a thing.

5. He may sound "evil" to you, but that does not mean he is. Your perception could very well be flawed, which, in this case, it is.

Perhaps I was unclear. I meant actual destruction, even torture, of my immortal soul (were such destruction possible).

Am I to understand that if you thought God told you to kill someone you would do it?



No, because He would not do so now:


Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!



Therefore, such an order would not be from Him but from another source.

No, because He would not do so now:


Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!



Therefore, such an order would not be from Him but from another source.

Completely contradictory. You made the claim that god is the source of all things, and is the final judge. There is no other source, according to you.

But the thread assumes He is proven.I think you missed my point. If God is proven to exist, then Christianity will become an organisation devoted solely to the desire for eternal life simply because proof in him now has some sort of material value. In that respect, the last thing someone who really loves God in sincerety will do, rather than someone who's just looking for a little self-sustention, is join the Church.

Completely contradictory. You made the claim that god is the source of all things, and is the final judge. There is no other source, according to you.



Not so, He is the origin of all things in the sense that he is the origin of us and Satan, however it is Satan's and our free will that leads to false teachings.

well since the christian god is also the jewish and muslim god and that he already exists i would stay just the way i am. plus the fact that proof denies faith, without faith god couldn't exist in our mortal world. so put a little more thought into your argument

No, because He would not do so now:


Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!



Therefore, such an order would not be from Him but from another source.

So God changed His mind? Which part of the infallible word was wrong?

So God changed His mind? Which part of the infallible word was wrong?



No...he never changed his mind...any source that contradicts the teachings of Christ and the apostles is invalid. The teachings that are not biblical are not of God. You failed to see my point.

Not so, He is the origin of all things in the sense that he is the origin of us and Satan, however it is Satan's and our free will that leads to false teachings.


Is Satan evil?

Is there a Hell?

Does your god cast souls in Hell to suffer for eternity?

If so, then god by any standard is the source of all evil.

Not so, He is the origin of all things in the sense that he is the origin of us and Satan, however it is Satan's and our free will that leads to false teachings.

wait, so did he create lucifer, and all of the other angels? and if he's omniscient and everything...he can see into the future, right? and he would know the consquences of his actions, i assume. if free will and lucifer/satan would eventually cause so many people to turn their backs on god, and ultimately lead to so many people being sent down to hell, what purpose do they serve? did god create a flawed universe on purpose?

wait, so did he create lucifer, and all of the other angels? and if he's omniscient and everything...he can see into the future, right? and he would know the consquences of his actions, i assume. if free will and lucifer/satan would eventually cause so many people to turn their backs on god, and ultimately lead to so many people being sent down to hell, what purpose do they serve? did god create a flawed universe on purpose?



You assume He chose to forsee events to come, also, whether He forsees the events or not, it is ultimately our decision to determine our fates. If He interfered to us from creating evil, then we would have no free will. You're trying to pass the buck of responsibility onto the party not responsible. Following your logic, we would have to throw a parent in jail everytime their child, regardless of age, committed a crime.

Is Satan evil?

Is there a Hell?

Does your god cast souls in Hell to suffer for eternity?

If so, then god by any standard is the source of all evil.



1. Free will

2. Seperation from God resulting in a malevolent use of free will

3. No, we cast our own souls there by refusing to be with God

You assume He chose to forsee events to come, also, whether He forsees the events or not, it is ultimately our decision to determine our fates. If He interfered to us from creating evil, then we would have no free will. You're trying to pass the buck of responsibility onto the party not responsible. Following your logic, we would have to throw a parent in jail everytime their child, regardless of age, committed a crime.

any comparison to a parent is null and void. a parent did not create humanity, did not even create the chromosomes they passed onto their children. a parent is a flawed human, whereas god is the creator of all. i must ask before we continue, does god have humanity's best interest in mind?

You assume He chose to forsee events to come, also, whether He forsees the events or not, it is ultimately our decision to determine our fates. If He interfered to us from creating evil, then we would have no free will. You're trying to pass the buck of responsibility onto the party not responsible. Following your logic, we would have to throw a parent in jail everytime their child, regardless of age, committed a crime.

If the parent knows what child is going to commit before he does it, and does nothing to prevent it, the parent becomes an accessory to the crime.

If the parent knows what child is going to commit before he does it, and does nothing to prevent it, the parent becomes an accessory to the crime.



But you're assuming God chooses to see our future actions, without providing biblical citations.

1. Free will

2. Seperation from God resulting in a malevolent use of free will

3. No, we cast our own souls there by refusing to be with God

Define free will. If your god defines what evil is, then ipso facto, he's the source of all evil. Not brain surgery, I'm afraid.

I like that line of logic-

You have the choice of kissing god's ass throughout your lifetime, so that you get the opportunity to kiss god's ass for the rest of eternity. If you don't like kissing god's ass, there's always hell. Choices, choices... so tasty and delicious.

No...he never changed his mind...any source that contradicts the teachings of Christ and the apostles is invalid. The teachings that are not biblical are not of God. You failed to see my point.


Then most of the Old Testament is invalid, since surely genocide is not 'what Jesus would do." So, again, I ask you, when the Bible contradicts itself, and it does, which part of the infallible word is wrong?

False, there is only one Christian God. What people believe of Him might vary, yet the Bible describes one God, one Faith, one Church.
False. "The christian god" is the god that the christians believe in, but since the christians don't agree there are many such entities.

But you're assuming God chooses to see our future actions, without providing biblical citations.

If your god refuses to see what his 'children' do and then lets them commit crimes, then he becomes negligent instead.

He's turning into a pretty crappy parent, you know.... maybe he should stick to killing people for shits n' grins, just like in the old days.

I'm afraid I couldn't do that, I'd have to start a resistance against the tyrant who killed his elders. Silly Yaweh, Godhead's not for kids.

Define free will. If your god defines what evil is, then ipso facto, he's the source of all evil. Not brain surgery, I'm afraid.

I like that line of logic-

You have the choice of kissing god's ass throughout your lifetime, so that you get the opportunity to kiss god's ass for the rest of eternity. If you don't like kissing god's ass, there's always hell. Choices, choices... so tasty and delicious.



1. That's absurd, if I assign a definition to a word, then I am the source of the meaning behind the word? Amusing.

2. If that's how you choose to view it, then fine...it's your stupid, illogical choice to make. I, for one, will choose to glorify my Creator. At least you've proven that you contribute nothing useful to the debate other than blasphemy and insults, which is enough to satisfy me.

If the parent knows what child is going to commit before he does it, and does nothing to prevent it, the parent becomes an accessory to the crime.Assuming you are equating the Parent to God...

If the Parent does try to prevent the crime by offering alternative solutions and even a way out....
If the Parent does provide the child with a sense of Right and Wrong...
If the Parent Sacrifices blood sweat and tears to get the child on the 'right' path...
and the child still doesn't listen, while his/her siblings do, then what does that make that child?

and if the Parent takes a firm hand and physically restrains the child from committing that crime, would the parent be accused of being Abusive and Oppressive? Even unloving and dominering?

And remember, that rebellious child will be forgiven if only he/she asks.

I'm afraid I couldn't do that, I'd have to start a resistance against the tyrant who killed his elders. Silly Yaweh, Godhead's not for kids.



Resistance? That's not even possible!


The most you could do is curse God for some perceived slights, die, get proven incorrect, the pay the consequences for your mistake.

Assuming you are equating the Parent to God...

If the Parent does try to prevent the crime by offering alternative solutions and even a way out....
If the Parent does provide the child with a sense of Right and Wrong...
If the Parent Sacrifices blood sweat and tears to get the child on the 'right' path...
and the child still doesn't listen, while his/her siblings do, then what does that make that child?

and if the Parent takes a firm hand and physically restrains the child from committing that crime, would the parent be accused of being Abusive and Oppressive? Even unloving and dominering?

And remember, that rebellious child will be forgiven if only he/she asks.
Assuming that the parent could help the child avoid the crime without causeing any trouble, but choose for his own pleasure to follow the above course, then it does not change the parent's responsibility.

Assuming you are equating the Parent to God...

If the Parent does try to prevent the crime by offering alternative solutions and even a way out....
If the Parent does provide the child with a sense of Right and Wrong...
If the Parent Sacrifices blood sweat and tears to get the child on the 'right' path...
and the child still doesn't listen, while his/her siblings do, then what does that make that child?

and if the Parent takes a firm hand and physically restrains the child from committing that crime, would the parent be accused of being Abusive and Oppressive? Even unloving and dominering?

And remember, that rebellious child will be forgiven if only he/she asks.


You're better at this than I am :(

Resistance? That's not even possible!


The most you could do is curse God for some perceived slights, die, get proven incorrect, the pay the consequences for your mistake.

For the existance of god there would have to be existance of believers. Human belief can achieve anything if channeled. Why do you think God wants your faith? Decieve yourself if you will, that's your choice. For His will to be done He needs Your faith. Smite the non-believers, love the believers. Love them why? because they believe in you, and give you more power. Deliever your wrath unto the heathens that defy you. Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle....I mean wrathful god.

Assuming you are equating the Parent to God...

If the Parent does try to prevent the crime by offering alternative solutions and even a way out....
If the Parent does provide the child with a sense of Right and Wrong...
If the Parent Sacrifices blood sweat and tears to get the child on the 'right' path...
and the child still doesn't listen, while his/her siblings do, then what does that make that child?

and if the Parent takes a firm hand and physically restrains the child from committing that crime, would the parent be accused of being Abusive and Oppressive? Even unloving and dominering?

And remember, that rebellious child will be forgiven if only he/she asks.

if that parent is omnipotent and created humanity and human nature, as well as the universe, then they are being woefully neglectful.

Assuming that the parent could help the child avoid the crime without causeing any trouble, but choose for his own pleasure to follow the above course, then it does not change the parent's responsibility.No it doesn't change the Parent's Responsibility. However, the Parent (God) has given us (his children) several means for avoiding trouble (sin) however, He won't force us to take any of those means, but will allow us to either Choose His Way(s) or our own.

and we are of an age where we are responsible for our actions. however, HE is always willing to help if we let HIM.

As any Good Parent Should be.

1. That's absurd, if I assign a definition to a word, then I am the source of the meaning behind the word? Amusing.

2. If that's how you choose to view it, then fine...it's your stupid, illogical choice to make. I, for one, will choose to glorify my Creator. At least you've proven that you contribute nothing useful to the debate other than blasphemy and insults, which is enough to satisfy me.

I'm not too worried about a myth. I consider the height of illogic to believe in a god when no evidence exists to substantiate it's existance.

Humans have worshiped one god or another for countless centuries, and never has belief in any of them bettered their standard of living. However, in the last two hundred years we've abandoned superstition and have become rational beings (or are trying to, anyway). We have better health we live longer, see farther, communicate better and are solving problems with great strides, something that simply wasn't capable with a superstitious mindset.

But, eh, good luck with your myth.

No it doesn't change the Parent's Responsibility. However, the Parent (God) has given us (his children) several means for avoiding trouble (sin) however, He won't force us to take any of those means, but will allow us to either Choose His Way(s) or our own.

and we are of an age where we are responsible for our actions. however, HE is always willing to help if we let HIM.

As any Good Parent Should be.

You really are quite good at that. Presenting your point without attacking like most do. I wish to extend an earnest bravo. Well done *applause light turns on*

Your logic is flawed:


1. If a mother tells her child "No more than one sweet a day", is she obligated to follow it herself? No, because the rule does not apply to her. She already knows what is best, and therefore has the right to implement a policy for her human protectorate to follow, without having to follow it herself.

Absolutely, a god doesn't have to follow its own rules because it makes all the rules.

2. We do not judge God at all. We cannot comprehend His true nature, therefore any judgements we make that are extraneous to His own statements about His nature have a 99.9999999999999999~% probability of being false in one way or another.

That is ultimately the problem with discussing any god. The christian god is set outside the universe and is entirely separate from humanity. He follows no rules or logic that a human can possibly fathom. God is, by his very nature, an unreasonable creature. How then can any person reasonably discuss an unreasonable creature?

More to the point if I say that I am a profit and I speak for god (let us say that god has had a change of heart and would prefer if you didn't eat pork afterall) can you say that I am wrong?

3. God cannot be evil, as it is contrary to his very nature.

Well, god being all powerful could be evil if he so chose. I would however assume that god would never choose to be evil because that would be wrong and god couldn't be wrong... except if god chose to be evil it wouldn't be wrong because god did it and god is always right... and so on.

4. What we know or don't know doesn't affect that which is, therefore, assuming God exists, if we delude ourselves into believing our own opinions instead of those of an omniscient entity, it does not determine a thing.

But we cannot ever know with absolute certainty the opinions of a god.

5. He may sound "evil" to you, but that does not mean he is. Your perception could very well be flawed, which, in this case, it is.

Not to be picky but your perception can be equally as flawed as his. You are just as human and just flawed as anyone else and it is just as likely that your opinions are wrong. God could potentially be or want anything. Humans can only guess his intentions based on the information we have which may or may not be accurate. It can only ever be conjecture.

bolded

Despite everything though if the christian god could be proven to exist I would believe in him, it would be the only sensible thing to do.

For the existance of god there would have to be existance of believers. Human belief can achieve anything if channeled. Why do you think God wants your faith? Decieve yourself if you will, that's your choice. For His will to be done He needs Your faith. Smite the non-believers, love the believers. Love them why? because they believe in you, and give you more power. Deliever your wrath unto the heathens that defy you. Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle....I mean wrathful god.



This isn't Black and White, nor do all of us embrace the philosophies of Nietzsche. God has shown his capability to administer justice without the use of humans, as was shown with Sodom and Gommorah.

And people like you sicken me, so we're even

Yes, because he's an Atheist he MUST be a Gay, transsexual, Satan-worshiping D&D Player! We must cleanse the world from this filth! Let's start back from the 15th century, eh? *Puts on his Witch Hunter hat. With an extra floppy brim.*

*Starts burning "Witches".*

I'm almost tempted to quote the Witch Scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail... Almost.

Assuming you are equating the Parent to God...

...

and if the Parent takes a firm hand and physically restrains the child from committing that crime, would the parent be accused of being Abusive and Oppressive? Even unloving and dominering?

And remember, that rebellious child will be forgiven if only he/she asks.

Hell no, that parent would be doing his job exactly as he should. I've never understood why God doesn't keep his followers from harm. If someone shot at you, and God stopped the bullet, would that be 'domineering?' It wouldn't override the free will of the assassin, since he still chose to (and was able to) pull the trigger.

I'm not too worried about a myth. I consider the height of illogic to believe in a god when no evidence exists to substantiate it's existance.

Humans have worshiped one god or another for countless centuries, and never has belief in any of them bettered their standard of living. However, in the last two hundred years we've abandoned superstition and have become rational beings (or are trying to, anyway). We have better health we live longer, see farther, communicate better and are solving problems with great strides, something that simply wasn't capable with a superstitious mindset.

But, eh, good luck with your myth.



Several things in this post are outright lies. However, in the interest of not being banned, I'll let you flamebait without responding.

This isn't Black and White, nor do all of us embrace the philosophies of Nietzsche. God has shown his capability to administer justice without the use of humans, as was shown with Sodom and Gommorah.

I didn't say he needed to use humans, I said they give him power. He eats your prayers you might say, though NO I'm not saying that literally. You pray and he gains strength from the power of your belief, your faith. That grants him the might to smite the land. That's all I'm saying. Though he does use humans alot to kill his enemies. The bible is littered with His children killing the children who have strayed from His path. Not to mention the over-abundance of holy wars afterward. Be it Jew, Muslim, or Christian, you kill and die alot in His name. (You all follow the same god. The Jews and Muslims are from the same people, they separated and follow the same God being. Christians follow the God of the Jews)

I didn't say he needed to use humans, I said they give him power. He eats your prayers you might say, though NO I'm not saying that literally. You pray and he gains strength from the power of your belief, your faith. That grants him the might to smite the land. That's all I'm saying. Though he does use humans alot to kill his enemies. The bible is littered with His children killing the children who have strayed from His path. Not to mention the over-abundance of holy wars afterward. Be it Jew, Muslim, or Christian, you kill and die alot in His name. (You all follow the same god. The Jews and Muslims are from the same people, they separated and follow the same God being. Christians follow the God of the Jews)



Not true, nobody wished destruction for Sodom and Gommorah, yet they were destroyed. What you have stated is an unprovable theory with no basis in scriptures and, as of yet, no evidence supporting it. I would like to see some, please.

Several things in this post are outright lies. However, in the interest of not being banned, I'll let you flamebait without responding.

Every damn thing in that post was the unvarnished truth. But go ahead, pick it apart.... all you need to do is type into your keyboard, on your computer, which is connected by the internet, which is powered by electricity, all of which was made possible by the wonders of science and rationalism. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

the religion is just a guide, to reach heaven depend on your deeds. :fluffle: you think religious extremist will reach heaven? :mad:

possibly yes, if God is as compassionate as we're told He is, and a little more, or if they convert later in their life, or something like that.

if that parent is omnipotent and created humanity and human nature, as well as the universe, then they are being woefully neglectful.not Neglectful. Consider parents, They may not be Omnipotent, but they have more knowledge of the world around you. how many times do you listen to them and do what they say? can you honestly say that you listened to your parents 100% of the time?

Those times when you don't listen, does that make them Neglectful?
Other times when they impose their rules and views on you do you think of them as being Unfair?

Smoke a little pot, get grounded for a month with no phone, computer or car. I've heard some people on this forum (A while back) say their "parents have no right to..." so where des that line get drawn?

Hell no, that parent would be doing his job exactly as he should. I've never understood why God doesn't keep his followers from harm. If someone shot at you, and God stopped the bullet, would that be 'domineering?' It wouldn't override the free will of the assassin, since he still chose to (and was able to) pull the trigger.How do you know he's not? how do you know that all his followers that are hurt or killed by others are not taken to Heaven where they are rewarded and Cared for. You really cannot say that "Because God Allowed me to be shot he doesn't care about me." he just may have bigger plans for you and your being shot.

He is a Provider and a Comforter and most imporantly, he does move in myserious ways.

...

He is a Provider and a Comforter and most imporantly, he does move in myserious ways.

"God moves in mysterious ways" is not in the Bible. What Jesus says is actually "Ask, and you shall be given." So try praying that you not come to physical harm, and see how it turns out. I'm sorry, but your god promised to fulfil our every desire, and as I'm sure you realize, this is not done.

not Neglectful. Consider parents, They may not be Omnipotent, but they have more knowledge of the world around you. how many times do you listen to them and do what they say? can you honestly say that you listened to your parents 100% of the time?

Those times when you don't listen, does that make them Neglectful?
Other times when they impose their rules and views on you do you think of them as being Unfair?

Smoke a little pot, get grounded for a month with no phone, computer or car. I've heard some people on this forum (A while back) say their "parents have no right to..." so where des that line get drawn?


see, but the parents still do not have all of the knowledge of the universe around them, nor did they create humanity, or have the powers of god. the parent analogy does not fly because parents are not dieties and the relationship between a deity and it's creations is very different than the relationship between parent offspring. once again, parents are very flawed, they are humans. god supposedly created the universe, he is all-knowing, he is all-powerful, he is present everywhere. he has the power to change everything, yet instead of creating change he just massacres a couple thousand or so people instead.

if i may offer a slighter stranger analogy of my own, it's like god is a scientist and we are mice. there is a maze, and drifting over that maze is the scent of, say, cheese. there are two exits, one is to a big block of cheese and the other is to a pit that plunges us into a furnace. thing is, the scientist wants the best result for his mice, that is his purpose. he has the power to make the mice avoid the furnace. sure, he could allow the mice to rely on free will, but then isn't he failing in his purpose? wouldn't he try to do everything in his power to lead them to the cheese, which would basically ensure that the desired result would occur?

Heh, I don't get that. The claim that 'intelligent people don't believe in God'.

That's why Einstein believed in God; Newton believed in God, Galileo believed in God, etc.
You misplace the word 'Spiritiual' for 'Godl'.
And that's why Jesus, Moses and Abraham belived in him too! Just like the pixies and fairys of wonderland-paridise! And wee little elfs drinking with their friends the hobbits! And dragons eating gnomes!
And intelligent people don't belive in god.
Quote: Why are atheist always the "educated ones" :rolleyes: ?
Answear: Because you are the "non-educated ones", we're just adding counter weight.

Zenmarkia: You need to reduce your signature. The limit is 8 lines per sig.

I am an atheist but if God was proved to exist? Irrefutably? I still wouldnt convert to christianity. It would be nice to know once and for all how the universe was created but to worship that creator? no way. The idea of worshipping anything is just wrong. Besides if he did exist God wouldnt be so insecure as to require worship anyway. And if he is, well, fuck him. Unless he is Morgan Freeman like in Bruce almighty. That would be nice.

Answear: Because you are the "non-educated ones", we're just adding counter weight.

I'm not usually one to point out spelling erros, but it's impossible to pass yourself as intelligent and educated when you don't spell "answer" correctly.



And intelligent people don't belive in god.


"intelligent" people must also be bigots...
(for future reference - to refer to yourself as being intelligent - has the opposite of the intended effect. in other words, you're making yourself seem quite stupid.)
your arrogance and pretentions amuse me.

If God were irrefutably proven to exist - Hell yes i would worship. you see, i have my ideas, But If the old testament is any indication, I'd rather not be smitten with divine force...
call me a coward if you will.

"God moves in mysterious ways" is not in the Bible. What Jesus says is actually "Ask, and you shall be given." So try praying that you not come to physical harm, and see how it turns out. I'm sorry, but your god promised to fulfil our every desire, and as I'm sure you realize, this is not done.Guess again, Ask, and you shall be given, but never stated when it will be given.

as for physical harm, I've never had any bones broken, nor any major surgery, not even stitches, still have my Apendix and Tonsils, and guess what, I'm well into my 30's

I did not ask not to come to Physical harm, but I did ask for good health.

Quote: Why are atheist always the "educated ones" :rolleyes: ?
Answear: Because you are the "non-educated ones", we're just adding counter weight.

Really?

I've known non-educated atheists believing in a Science they could't understand with as much dogmatism and superstition as some old country woman who spends her retirement years kissing reliquiaries in every church she sees (the stereotypal uneducated believer in my country - some of them are not women, some are young, some live in metropolitan areas, that's not the point)

I've also know good scientists who happen to be also believers and trictly Catholics, not because they had found a proof of god, but because there still isn't a proof of not-god, and they feel that is the right choice to take.

The real scientific choice, as someone has pointed before, would be agnosticism: since you don't have a proof you can't really believe in either alternative, except with an act of blind faith.

Of course you can also decide to pick one choice as an axiom, and act as if it's true, possibly on the basis of some feeling of meta-logical reasoning, but then as a scientist you should have the humility to recognise that there are some chances that you'll be proved wrong, and be ready to accept the other choice.

see, but the parents still do not have all of the knowledge of the universe around them, nor did they create humanity, or have the powers of god. the parent analogy does not fly because parents are not dieties and the relationship between a deity and it's creations is very different than the relationship between parent offspring. once again, parents are very flawed, they are humans. god supposedly created the universe, he is all-knowing, he is all-powerful, he is present everywhere. he has the power to change everything, yet instead of creating change he just massacres a couple thousand or so people instead. The parent Analogy isn't originally mine, but someone elses. They were attempt to say that it's Gods fault that man is "naughty"

if i may offer a slighter stranger analogy of my own, it's like god is a scientist and we are mice. there is a maze, and drifting over that maze is the scent of, say, cheese. there are two exits, one is to a big block of cheese and the other is to a pit that plunges us into a furnace. thing is, the scientist wants the best result for his mice, that is his purpose. he has the power to make the mice avoid the furnace. sure, he could allow the mice to rely on free will, but then isn't he failing in his purpose? wouldn't he try to do everything in his power to lead them to the cheese, which would basically ensure that the desired result would occur?I wouldn't say Scientist, but perhaps, a Self Study course Instructor. all the materials and lessons are provided, the Instructor sits at the head of the class and says I am here if you have any questions and problems, Now as the Lab Class progresses, he moves amoung the students and will offer advice and counsiling as to what needs to be done, there are texts and notes from previous years that the students can use as well as bringing Questions to the Teacher Himself.

Now as the Students, we can peruse the books and the notes, ask the instructor for guidence or we can choose to go it alone. the instructor will aid those who ask for help, but will not impose his views and advice on those who choose not to ask.

he will hover and watch but not interferre, he will help when asked but it's up to the students to follow his advice or not.

and he will hand out the final grade when all is said and done.

If a Christian god existed that would make me more apt to believe that other gods do as well… so… No.

I would acknowledge his existence, but that does not mean that I would agree with him on all subjects... That still is a huge difference.

I surely would have a lot of questions for him, but I'm afraid I will never be able to ask them :)

I surely would have a lot of questions for him, but I'm afraid I will never be able to ask them :)Why not??
If it's proven that The Christian God exists, then maybe he really does hear prayers.

it could be that he's patiently waiting for you to return his call. :)

You really are quite good at that. Presenting your point without attacking like most do. I wish to extend an earnest bravo. Well done *applause light turns on*Thanks, still learning tho. In Religious threads it's difficult to keep ones emotions in check.

Hope I continue to learn. :D

I'm not usually one to point out spelling erros, but it's impossible to pass yourself as intelligent and educated when you don't spell "answer" correctly.

OH MY GOD its contagious head for the hills.

OH MY GOD its contagious head for the hills.
It's a law of the internet that anyone who corrects spelling/grammar will make a spelling error or grammar error in their post.

'The Lord killeth and maketh alive.' Consequently, by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent, without any injustice whatever.
Premise: God can order any act and it is just, even if that act contradicts the gospel.

If a mother tells her child "No more than one sweet a day", is she obligated to follow it herself? No, because the rule does not apply to her. She already knows what is best, and therefore has the right to implement a policy for her human protectorate to follow, without having to follow it herself.
Premise: God is not bound by any rules of God's making, including what is said in the Gospel

We cannot comprehend His true nature, therefore any judgements we make that are extraneous to His own statements about His nature have a 99.9999999999999999~% probability of being false in one way or another.
Premise: none of us can know God's nature
material implication
We cannot know what God would or would not order.

No, because He would not do so now:
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.
Therefore, such an order would not be from Him but from another source.
Conclusion: Neo Regolia does know what God would or would not order, and would disobey God's order if it didnt fit with her idea of what God ought and ought not order...:confused:

It's a law of the internet that anyone who corrects spelling/grammar will make a spelling error or grammar error in their post.

Yea it is incredibly funny to see people try and make someone look bad and then shoot themselves in the foot as well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg

Nothing can shake my faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

May you Forever be Touched by his Noodly Appendage!

"God moves in mysterious ways" is not in the Bible. What Jesus says is actually "Ask, and you shall be given." So try praying that you not come to physical harm, and see how it turns out. I'm sorry, but your god promised to fulfil our every desire, and as I'm sure you realize, this is not done.



*yawns* I'm back.



Job 37:5 God's voice thunders in marvelous ways;
he does great things beyond our understanding.




As for prayers:

2 Cor. 12:7-10 7* Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself!
8* Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me.
9* And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
10* Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.



Sometimes his answer is no. He will do what is best for us, regardless of what we desire.

Sometimes his answer is no. He will do what is best for us, regardless of what we desire.
Amen.

To the OP:
I already am a Christian, converting because He was somehow proven to non-believers would be redundant, don’t you think? Anyway, God has already proven himself to exist to me through his presence.

What bugs me about christianity is that most christians seem to put the bible over god. I would never join a religion like that.

No scientist will ever prove the existence of god because it's not a scientific question. If I had a direct revelation of the will of god then I would follow it, but I wouldn't put any faith in what other people have told me about him.

He does and I did.

PWNED!

He does and I did also!

What bugs me about christianity is that most christians seem to put the bible over god. I would never join a religion like that.

No scientist will ever prove the existence of god because it's not a scientific question. If I had a direct revelation of the will of god then I would follow it, but I wouldn't put any faith in what other people have told me about him.

You know, that's another thing to this premise:

Just because the God of Abraham proves itself doesn't prove a single god damned thing in the Bible.

Still, I don't like the whole one-in-all god idea because it is just so full of contradictions that it puts itself outside the realm of logic (and "God moves in mysterious ways" is the only possible answer, even though my own personal conclusion on gods involves us being mentally identical to a creator god but imprisoned by our biological flesh, which neatly explains a few contradictions in the one-in-all god), something I chose ot adhere to quite closely.

I very much like the Greek and Norse gods, though. Lot more interesting and (IMO) lot more deserving of worship, if anyone is.

Good point, that's true, but I won't question their motives.

I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details.
- Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein

Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe.
- Albert Einstein

When the solution is simple, God is answering.
- Albert Einstein

You cannot, however, question Einstein's faith. One of the greatest geniuses of all time was himself a deist.


ARGUMENT FROM SCIENTISTS
(1) Some famous scientists believed in God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Considering that I believe Christian God = Muslim God, no.

Besides, I still don;t believe Jesus is the son of God. Which is practically the main difference between the Muslim and Christian God. Unless you perform a fertilization test on God, you can't know whether he can have a kid or not.

Well well, if you humble yourself you will meet Him. He's just. There.
For an omnipotent being, God must have some serious self-esteem issues if he needs people to humble themselves before him before he comes out of hiding.

Poor guy.

If God, directly spoke to you, that would be the ultimate experince.
If God directly spoke to me, I wouldn't believe it were God anyway. I'd sooner believe it was someone playing an elaborate prank, or even devious extraterrestrials, before I would believe it were an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being.

Moreover, if I did believe it were God, I wouldn't behave any differently anyway. If he really created all life just so he would have someone around to worship him -- well, he doesn't sound like the sort of being I want running the show anyway.

So why would God give an idiot such an experince?

It would seem to me the "idiots" (from the Christian perspective) deserve it most. Apparently, the rest of you are smart enough to figure out all about God on your own. Your benevolent God should take pity on us foolish atheists and just let the cat out of the bag already. It's not our fault we miss out on that "oceanic feeling". We just weren't built that way. ;)

If God gave me $10.00, I might pray to him once.

Hmm... Indeed.

My prayer would be as follows:

"How about a burnt offering for $100?"

Let's say you're a parent. You have 2 children, one fails every class, the other is an A student.

You love both your children, but you know that ones an idiot, and the other is smart.

Ahh... And then you damn the dumb one to eternal suffering. Right.

If you think even a little you will realise that the physical universe can't have created itself. *snip* But just the fact we are here proves something beyond our comprehension created us.
Well, you said it right there.

The origin of the universe is "beyond our comprehension". We do not understand it.

But from that fact, one cannot go on to conclude a) that we will never understand it (scientifically), nor b) that therefore it must have been intentionally created by some cosmic being.

Indeed, in that case we would just have God creating the universe... while the origin of God her/himself would remain -- yup, "beyond our comprehension."

This is an old old OLD argument. Reasonable people got over it a LONG time ago.

He does and I did also!
Then you may want to re look up your definition of pwned because if you leave the rules of the discussion you but make yourself look foolish

You cant pwn someone correctly without staying in the rules of the game

Example fencing

All good and fine if we are in a sporting game of fencing and you parry correctly and score on me hardcore

That is a pwn specially if you do it over and over again

Now if you came at me in a shotgun specifically when the rules of the game are no shotguns and kill me you no longer pwn me as you did not stay in the rules of the game as specifically stated … that’s when we call you a cheat that does not have enough skill to compete within the hypothetical

But He is above the law!Hence the "beyond our comprehension".Only something not bound by physics could put physics in place.

Maybe... but physicists themselves have recently been arguing that physical law only really settled in as we know it today within the first few seconds of the Big Bang. As scientists, we cannot judge the extremely young universe (within a few seconds old) by the standards of today's "law". We are only just beginning to figure out how things worked in those first few seconds.

All of which suggests that sooner or later we may be able to give it a scientific description.

The problem is that the identity of the Christian god is confusing. The Christian god seems to be benevolent, though is cursed with elements of the angry, jealous Old Testament god, who is very evil, and wants to suppress or destroy humanity. Theoretically, this is because the Old and New Testaments are based upon several older religions that were prevalent in the ancient world. The Old Testament god was the Canaanite god El, who was favored by early Canaanites but was later superceded by his son, Adad, often referred to as "Baal" which is a word meaning "The Lord". El was the same god as the Babylonian Ellil (the Sumerian Enlil), who was an angry jealous god of air, wind, and "foreign lands" (whatever that means). The closest Egyptian equivalent is Seth. Enlil was known for forbidding his worshippers from worshipping any other god (see "The Curse of Agade" for details), and Enlil was a very old and powerful god. In stories of The Flood, Enlil attempted to destroy all of humanity, while the Noah character (Ziusudra in Sumerian, Deucalion in Greek, etc.) was saved by Enlil's brother, Enki. Enki appears to be very similar to the New Testament god, in being clever, benevolent to humanity, wise, and powerful. Furthermore, while death is typically a gloomy prospect in ancient tradition, Enki offers an alternative in his "Absu House" (referred to as Osiris' "sekhet hetspet" in Egyptian. Osiris appears to be very similar to Enki.).

The Christian god, in some ways, is very similar to Enki. But the Christian god is also very similar to the Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazda, who is the highest god, and the leaders of the forces of good (Zoroastrianism divides everything into good and evil). Basically, Christianity is a hodge podge of several other religions, and the Hebrew religion was an offshoot of the Canaanite religion. Therefore, it is difficult to determine who or what the Christian god is supposed to be, and it seems there are several answers.

If we found sound, empirical evidence that God indeed existed, it would be necessary to abolish him. I'd join the dark side, most likely.

Yes, here's to a more egalitarian universe. Down with the tyrant!!

The answer is an obvious "no". :rolleyes: He's already proven Himself, and still many have yet to convert.

The answer is an obvious "no". :rolleyes: He's already proven Himself, and still many have yet to convert.
And what a damn horrible job he has done of it cause many of us are waiting for the evidence WE need

Yes, here's to a more egalitarian universe. Down with the tyrant!!



It's like a 3 yr. old throwing a temper tantrum because mommy won't let her have a piece of candy :rolleyes:

And what a damn horrible job he has done of it cause many of us are waiting for the evidence WE need



It's been given to you, but you won't accept it. No, you'd rather be slapped in the face by Him. Sorry, that would eliminate all faith.

Do you actually think of yourself as a "god" or a "metaphysical being"?

Pardon me while I point at you and laugh.

Don't be stupid. Don't you Christians believe in a "soul"? What the hell is that, if not a "metaphysical being"?

I think the New Testament teaches many positive values (courage, nobility, selflessness) but is fundamentally flawed do to its history. The Bible tends to put down humanity and promote despair (we're born in sin and what not). Philosophically, I prefer ideologies that promote humanity's rise to the level of supermen, and evolution to the next level, rather than promoting a lifetime of bowing and scraping and surrender to some deity that we offended. Nietzsche and Darwin had it right. Inevitably, the stories of the Christian god will keep people from realizing their inner divinity and achieving their highest purposes.

The problem is that the identity of the Christian god is confusing. The Christian god seems to be benevolent, though is cursed with elements of the angry, jealous Old Testament god, who is very evil, and wants to suppress or destroy humanity. Theoretically, this is because the Old and New Testaments are based upon several older religions that were prevalent in the ancient world. The Old Testament god was the Canaanite god El, who was favored by early Canaanites but was later superceded by his son, Adad, often referred to as "Baal" which is a word meaning "The Lord". El was the same god as the Babylonian Ellil (the Sumerian Enlil), who was an angry jealous god of air, wind, and "foreign lands" (whatever that means). The closest Egyptian equivalent is Seth. Enlil was known for forbidding his worshippers from worshipping any other god (see "The Curse of Agade" for details), and Enlil was a very old and powerful god. In stories of The Flood, Enlil attempted to destroy all of humanity, while the Noah character (Ziusudra in Sumerian, Deucalion in Greek, etc.) was saved by Enlil's brother, Enki. Enki appears to be very similar to the New Testament god, in being clever, benevolent to humanity, wise, and powerful. Furthermore, while death is typically a gloomy prospect in ancient tradition, Enki offers an alternative in his "Absu House" (referred to as Osiris' "sekhet hetspet" in Egyptian. Osiris appears to be very similar to Enki.).

The Christian god, in some ways, is very similar to Enki. But the Christian god is also very similar to the Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazda, who is the highest god, and the leaders of the forces of good (Zoroastrianism divides everything into good and evil). Basically, Christianity is a hodge podge of several other religions, and the Hebrew religion was an offshoot of the Canaanite religion. Therefore, it is difficult to determine who or what the Christian god is supposed to be, and it seems there are several answers.

To the guy who claimed that God revealing himself to an atheist would be the ultimate experience:

No, its not. The Ultimate Experience is a Jimi Hendrix CD

(actually, its a subtitle)

Absolutely NOT!

Don't be stupid. Don't you Christians believe in a "soul"? What the hell is that, if not a "metaphysical being"?
Lol I was going to say is that not your metiphisical manifestation of "you" (suposedly)

I think the New Testament teaches many positive values (courage, nobility, selflessness) but is fundamentally flawed do to its history. The Bible tends to put down humanity and promote despair (we're born in sin and what not). Philosophically, I prefer ideologies that promote humanity's rise to the level of supermen, and evolution to the next level, rather than promoting a lifetime of bowing and scraping and surrender to some deity that we offended. Nietzsche and Darwin had it right. Inevitably, the stories of the Christian god will keep people from realizing their inner divinity and achieving their highest purposes.

How exactly has Christianity depressed you? On the other hand, it uplifted me! You're obviously taking it the wrong way.

I think the New Testament teaches many positive values (courage, nobility, selflessness) but is fundamentally flawed do to its history. The Bible tends to put down humanity and promote despair (we're born in sin and what not). Philosophically, I prefer ideologies that promote humanity's rise to the level of supermen, and evolution to the next level, rather than promoting a lifetime of bowing and scraping and surrender to some deity that we offended. Nietzsche and Darwin had it right. Inevitably, the stories of the Christian god will keep people from realizing their inner divinity and achieving their highest purposes.



Yes, Hitler said the same thing ;)

How exactly has Christianity depressed you? On the other hand, it uplifted me! You're obviously taking it the wrong way.
That or you are ... care to objectivly prove your interpretation correct?

How exactly has Christianity depressed you? On the other hand, it uplifted me! You're obviously taking it the wrong way.


Look hon, he's advocating Nietschze! It's pretty fair to say that you cannot convince him otherwise.

I believe that ideals and heroes are important to society, but that Christianity represents a culture that bears no relevance to the world I live in. What we need is new heroes, new epics, and new ideals to follow, or at least a 21st century story reaffirming what it means to be honorable, and to be brave, and to be noble, and to have dignity. I live in contemporary times, but I'm not an athiest, because I feel that these ideals have vanished from our society, and that civilization and humanity is suffering because of it. At the same time, the mixed up history of some 2000 year old dead hippie doesn't satisfy my need for idealism. And all of the theological history quoted below won't matter if we have new, current heroes to follow. Too bad we don't have any leaders worth romanticizing.

The problem is that the identity of the Christian god is confusing. The Christian god seems to be benevolent, though is cursed with elements of the angry, jealous Old Testament god, who is very evil, and wants to suppress or destroy humanity. Theoretically, this is because the Old and New Testaments are based upon several older religions that were prevalent in the ancient world. The Old Testament god was the Canaanite god El, who was favored by early Canaanites but was later superceded by his son, Adad, often referred to as "Baal" which is a word meaning "The Lord". El was the same god as the Babylonian Ellil (the Sumerian Enlil), who was an angry jealous god of air, wind, and "foreign lands" (whatever that means). The closest Egyptian equivalent is Seth. Enlil was known for forbidding his worshippers from worshipping any other god (see "The Curse of Agade" for details), and Enlil was a very old and powerful god. In stories of The Flood, Enlil attempted to destroy all of humanity, while the Noah character (Ziusudra in Sumerian, Deucalion in Greek, etc.) was saved by Enlil's brother, Enki. Enki appears to be very similar to the New Testament god, in being clever, benevolent to humanity, wise, and powerful. Furthermore, while death is typically a gloomy prospect in ancient tradition, Enki offers an alternative in his "Absu House" (referred to as Osiris' "sekhet hetspet" in Egyptian. Osiris appears to be very similar to Enki.).

The Christian god, in some ways, is very similar to Enki. But the Christian god is also very similar to the Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazda, who is the highest god, and the leaders of the forces of good (Zoroastrianism divides everything into good and evil). Basically, Christianity is a hodge podge of several other religions, and the Hebrew religion was an offshoot of the Canaanite religion. Therefore, it is difficult to determine who or what the Christian god is supposed to be, and it seems there are several answers.

He doesn't condemn you to Hell, you condemn yourself. It's your decision, not His.

Then why does Matthew quote Jesus, in Chapter 13:40-42: "Just as the weeds are separated out and burned, so it will be at the end of the world. I, the Son of Man, will send my angels, and they will remove from my Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil, and they will throw them into the furnace and burn them. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Or 47-50: "The Kingdom of heaven is like this. Some fishermen throw their net out in the lake and catch all kinds of fish. When the net is full, they pull it to shore and sit down to divide the fish: the good ones go into the buckets, the worthless ones are thrown away. It will be like this at the end of the age: the angels will go out and gather up the evil people from among the good and will throw them into the fiery furnace, where they will cry and gnash their teeth."

Or how about John 3:36? "All who believe in God's Son have eternal life. Those who don't obey the Son will never experience eternal life, but the wrath of God remains upon them."

Matthew 12:36-37? "You can be sure that on the Judgment Day you will have to give account of every useless word you have ever spoken. Your words will be used to judge you-to declare you either innocent or guilty."

Matthew 3:10? "Even now the ax of God's judgment is poised, ready to sever your roots. Yes, every tree that does not produce good fruit will be chopped down and thrown into the fire."

What's all this about judgment and the "wrath of God" if it's really all up to me?

Look hon, he's advocating Nietschze! It's pretty fair to say that you cannot convince him otherwise.

What's wrong with Nietzsche? His primary message was to live for achievement (be the "superman") rather than living merely for comfort (the "Ultimate Man"). This, of course, is from Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In "The Will to Power", Nietzsche basically says that as people become disillusioned with the old religions, nihilism will take over, and people will live for nothing but self indulgence, but then Nietzsche offers as an alternative, living for the maximization of one's potential (the will to power). This is exactly the sort of philosophy our society needs today. I live in New York City, and everyone around me seems to care about nothing but making enough money to buy handjobs and fois gras.

What's wrong with Nietzsche? His primary message was to live for achievement (be the "superman") rather than living merely for comfort (the "Ultimate Man"). This, of course, is from Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In "The Will to Power", Nietzsche basically says that as people become disillusioned with the old religions, nihilism will take over, and people will live for nothing but self indulgence, but then Nietzsche offers as an alternative, living for the maximization of one's potential (the will to power). This is exactly the sort of philosophy our society needs today. I live in New York City, and everyone around me seems to care about nothing but making enough money to buy handjobs and fois gras.

Where everybody fights to be the top and disregarding everything and everyone else in the way?

Not true, nobody wished destruction for Sodom and Gommorah, yet they were destroyed. What you have stated is an unprovable theory with no basis in scriptures and, as of yet, no evidence supporting it. I would like to see some, please.

Thank goodness the christian god does not exist and is not proveable.. because I'm getting tired of hearing about the story of Sodom and Gommorah. Let me state something.. I don't believe such a being exists that would condemn me to hell and would allow Neo to go to heaven. I don't believe any of it exists. The christian religion is filled with holes, hypocrisy and lies.

The christian fallacies do annoy me, but I no longer get upset by these people. They are irrelevant to my life and to my happiness. They want to subject me to misery. I will not listen to people who want to do that to me. They can continue believeing their contradictory believes and they can continue to believe they are only the good ones to go into some ridiculous afterlife paradise.

Yes, Hitler said the same thing ;)

What you're implying is really a terrible argument. It's like saying that Hitler breathed air, therefore breathing air is wrong. Or that Hitler was an animal lover, which means that loving animals is evil. Please keep Hitler out of this discussion, as the relevance of the Christian god is already a complicated enough matter.

Define evil, please.

Well, trusting to the OED... It is traced to the root for "up" and "over", and seems to have the sense, historically, of "beyond all due measure."

What you're implying is really a terrible argument. It's like saying that Hitler breathed air, therefore breathing air is wrong. Or that Hitler was an animal lover, which means that loving animals is evil. Please keep Hitler out of this discussion, as the relevance of the Christian god is already a complicated enough matter.



It's completely relevant, as he attempt to fulfill Nietzsche's concept of the superman. If you take Nietzsche's writings seriously, it's as if he would have endorsed Hitler's attempt to further the evolution of man.

Where everybody fights to be the top and disregarding everything and everyone else in the way?

There is no mention of disregarding anyone or anything, but yes, competition is a part of this theory, in the same way that competition is the driving force behind capitalism, and how athletic sports are about trying to be the best, or help your team to be the best, and how one, in any career, will often try to be the best in his or her field.

It's completely relevant, as he attempt to fulfill Nietzsche's concept of the superman. If you take Nietzsche's writings seriously, it's as if he would have endorsed Hitler's attempt to further the evolution of man.

Nietzsche's philosophy is intended for the individual, in his approach to life. The Nazi's approach was to attempt to control the entire German society, which would essentially take away the individual's ability to choose any approach whatsoever. A person must attempt to push himself forward, not to push others forward by force. Hitler had his own interpretation of Nietzsche, but it wasn't correct.

Then why does Matthew quote Jesus, in Chapter 13:40-42: "Just as the weeds are separated out and burned, so it will be at the end of the world. I, the Son of Man, will send my angels, and they will remove from my Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil, and they will throw them into the furnace and burn them. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Or 47-50: "The Kingdom of heaven is like this. Some fishermen throw their net out in the lake and catch all kinds of fish. When the net is full, they pull it to shore and sit down to divide the fish: the good ones go into the buckets, the worthless ones are thrown away. It will be like this at the end of the age: the angels will go out and gather up the evil people from among the good and will throw them into the fiery furnace, where they will cry and gnash their teeth."

Or how about John 3:36? "All who believe in God's Son have eternal life. Those who don't obey the Son will never experience eternal life, but the wrath of God remains upon them."

Matthew 12:36-37? "You can be sure that on the Judgment Day you will have to give account of every useless word you have ever spoken. Your words will be used to judge you-to declare you either innocent or guilty."

Matthew 3:10? "Even now the ax of God's judgment is poised, ready to sever your roots. Yes, every tree that does not produce good fruit will be chopped down and thrown into the fire."

What's all this about judgment and the "wrath of God" if it's really all up to me?



The statement that He condemns you to Hell, in this case, implies that he is actually responsible for your eternal fate. This is simply not true, those who fail to accept the sacrifice that He didn't even have to make for us in the first place are damning themselves.

There is no mention of disregarding anyone or anything, but yes, competition is a part of this theory, in the same way that competition is the driving force behind capitalism, and how athletic sports are about trying to be the best, or help your team to be the best, and how one, in any career, will often try to be the best in his or her field.

And neglecting the people who get left behind. I feel so loved! :rolleyes:

And neglecting the people who get left behind. I feel so loved! :rolleyes:
Reminds me terribly of what the suposed christian god does with non believers ... he leaves them behind for all eternity

Hmmm maybe you are geting a taste what your god looks like to us

It's completely relevant, as he attempt to fulfill Nietzsche's concept of the superman. If you take Nietzsche's writings seriously, it's as if he would have endorsed Hitler's attempt to further the evolution of man.

That's like saying Descartes advocated destroying the universe so that one could be sure that it doesn't exist.

Reminds me terribly of what the suposed christian god does with non believers ... he leaves them behind for all eternity

Hmmm maybe you are geting a taste what your god looks like to us
No no. It's YOUR choice to neglect God, not the other way round. Perhaps you get a feeling of how God feels by being neglected by you.

:rolleyes:

No no. It's YOUR choice to neglect God, not the other way round. Perhaps you get a feeling of how God feels by being neglected by you.

Neglect something that isn't even there..... hahahahh....

And neglecting the people who get left behind. I feel so loved! :rolleyes:

Where do you get this idea of "neglect"? Would you say that Thomas Edison neglected people by trying to be a great inventor? Would you say that Howard Hughes neglected society by focusing himself on his own passions for engineering? Did Leonardo Da Vinci get accused of "neglecting people who get left behind" because he spent too much time on his own work?

No no. It's YOUR choice to neglect God, not the other way round. Perhaps you get a feeling of how God feels by being neglected by you.

Why should I care about how some "god" feels? If he's so godly, then he doesn't need me to waste any time on him. I have a limited amount of time to live life and become my potential, and I'm not going to throw my time away on some emotionally challenged deity that needs to surround himself with sycophants.

The statement that He condemns you to Hell, in this case, implies that he is actually responsible for your eternal fate. This is simply not true, those who fail to accept the sacrifice that He didn't even have to make for us in the first place are damning themselves.

Screw anyone who would condemn me like that. I want someone to inspire me to become better, not someone to bully and threaten me. The Bible and the Koran advocate the wrong kind of god (although at least the New Testament has some sections describing good values of strength and courage and nobility).

Nothing is really "proveable" though, except by definition. Anything you think is "proven" in science is just a theory designed around the observations, and completely arbitrary. Why do you think relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible?

Thank goodness the christian god does not exist and is not proveable.. because I'm getting tired of hearing about the story of Sodom and Gommorah. Let me state something.. I don't believe such a being exists that would condemn me to hell and would allow Neo to go to heaven. I don't believe any of it exists. The christian religion is filled with holes, hypocrisy and lies.

The christian fallacies do annoy me, but I no longer get upset by these people. They are irrelevant to my life and to my happiness. They want to subject me to misery. I will not listen to people who want to do that to me. They can continue believeing their contradictory believes and they can continue to believe they are only the good ones to go into some ridiculous afterlife paradise.

Where do you get this idea of "neglect"? Would you say that Thomas Edison neglected people by trying to be a great inventor? Would you say that Howard Hughes neglected society by focusing himself on his own passions for engineering? Did Leonardo Da Vinci get accused of "neglecting people who get left behind" because he spent too much time on his own work?

No, but when the entire society begins to compete on a mass scale, then inevitably there will be neglection.

Why should I care about how some "god" feels? If he's so godly, then he doesn't need me to waste any time on him. I have a limited amount of time to live life and become my potential, and I'm not going to throw my time away on some emotionally challenged deity that needs to surround himself with sycophants.

The reason He wants you to spend time on Him is simply because He is so godly.

Nobody is asking you to revert to barbarianism by becoming Christian. You can still strive for that job promotion, but you would do it like a Christian (i.e. no cheating), and if God likes you to have that promotion, He would even grant you it.

Nothing is really "proveable" though, except by definition. Anything you think is "proven" in science is just a theory designed around the observations, and completely arbitrary. Why do you think relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible?

Did you quote the right person? Because I don't feel anything you said is relevant to my post.

And science is backed by evidence that is testable and proven. It isn't arbitrary. Only a fundamentalist would say nonsense like that.

It's like a 3 yr. old throwing a temper tantrum because mommy won't let her have a piece of candy :rolleyes:

Mommies and Daddies are necessary before people have grown up enough to take care of themselves.

Of course, since children do not know (presumably) right from wrong, parents only punish them in order to teach them... not in retribution. Not until they reach an age of moral responsibility.

So which is it? Are we able to judge good and evil for ourselves, and thus morally responsible such that God can justly sentence us to Hell? Or are we children that need Mommy to guide us toward moral behavior?

You can't have it both ways.

No, but when the entire society begins to compete on a mass scale, then inevitably there will be neglection.

First of all, I don't think "neglection" is a word, and second of all, what is this neglect you keep talking about? Are you saying the government should control every aspect of life and prevent people from competing? Everyone that has any ability to do something positive has something to live for, and can achieve some sort of purpose.

Did you quote the right person? Because I don't feel anything you said is relevant to my post.

And science is backed by evidence that is testable and proven. It isn't arbitrary. Only a fundamentalist would say nonsense like that.

Trust me, one of my undergraduate majors in college was physics. It's all theory. People believe it because of all the statistics that are used, but statistics themselves have no logical basis. Basically, equations can be developed to make physical predictions on many, many various theories of existence, and none is more right than the other (but physicists have to keep changing their theories every time they realize that the observations don't agree with what they said previously, which is quite often).

First of all, I don't think "neglection" is a word, and second of all, what is this neglect you keep talking about? Are you saying the government should control every aspect of life and prevent people from competing? Everyone that has any ability to do something positive has something to live for, and can achieve some sort of purpose.

I have a feeling it's not a word either, heh. It's "neglect", isn't it? :p

No. I'm saying, we should all become Christians and look after each other while trying to get on with life. :D

Trust me, one of my undergraduate majors in college was physics. It's all theory. People believe it because of all the statistics that are used, but statistics themselves have no logical basis. Basically, equations can be developed to make physical predictions on many, many various theories of existence, and none is more right than the other (but physicists have to keep changing their theories every time they realize that the observations don't agree with what they said previously, which is quite often).

Well considering the person who replied to my post stated something that wasn't even relevant.. I don't see how I can discuss this further. There is evidence to science. Only a christian fundamentalist would reject that.

The reason He wants you to spend time on Him is simply because He is so godly.

Nobody is asking you to revert to barbarianism by becoming Christian. You can still strive for that job promotion, but you would do it like a Christian (i.e. no cheating), and if God likes you to have that promotion, He would even grant you it.

Your god can't bribe me, and I'm not impressed with his arrogance. You're like a tv commercial trying to convince me to buy something I don't need. What I need in life is to become the maximum of my potential, and I am helped by gods and heroes that inspire me to strive to become a perfect version of myself. What I don't need is some big bully saying "I'll give you heaven if you bow down to me."

The statement that He condemns you to Hell, in this case, implies that he is actually responsible for your eternal fate. This is simply not true, those who fail to accept the sacrifice that He didn't even have to make for us in the first place are damning themselves.

The quotations I cited certainly seem to make him responsible.

After all, he chooses the punishment. It's not as if some law beyond the will of God states that humans who reject God go to Hell. Even if there were such a law, an omnipotent God could overturn it, right?

Instead, he decrees that Hell is the punishment for unbelievers, but then claims that it was "all them," right? What happened to mercy? You can make whatever claims you want showing that God is merciful... but none of it stands up to the fact that he would damn someone for eternity for fucking up (and that based on highly suspect rules) in one short lifetime.

Damn, there are Earthly parents who are a lot more unconditionally loving than this God of yours. There are children who treat their parents like shit, reject all overtures of love... and yet for whom said parents would nevertheless sacrifice themselves a hundred times over. At any rate, they wouldn't throw their son or daughter into a burning pit for eternity.

I happen to think such parents are rather foolish... Nevertheless, it remains true that if God were all-loving, he would have to at least live up to that standard of mercy. Right?

No no. It's YOUR choice to neglect God, not the other way round.

Okay. But why does he have to be such a bastard about it?

I mean, seriously. If all you do is "neglect" him, does that really justify eternal damnation? Does the punishment fit the crime? Is he that fucking needy?

Your god can't bribe me, and I'm not impressed with his arrogance. You're like a tv commercial trying to convince me to buy something I don't need. What I need in life is to become the maximum of my potential, and I am helped by gods and heroes that inspire me to strive to become a perfect version of myself. What I don't need is some big bully saying "I'll give you heaven if you bow down to me."
Okay.

Okay. But why does he have to be such a bastard about it?

I mean, seriously. If all you do is "neglect" him, does that really justify eternal damnation? Does the punishment fit the crime? Is he that fucking needy?

Well, it's His personality. Does He have to be? No, of course not. He can be lenient and say, "Oh, humanity. Go and have fun and sin." But is He? No He's not.

Well, it's His personality. Does He have to be? No, of course not. He can be lenient and say, "Oh, humanity. Go and have fun and sin." But is He? No He's not.

EXACTLY. And that's why, even if I believed him to exist -- which I don't -- I would not be inspired to follow his word or obey his law.

"Personality" is no justification for being an evil tyrant.

The god of the bible, literally interpreted, is a sadistic bastard. I'd sooner rot in hell than worship such a beast. I've said as much elsewhere.

Now, that's not to say that I would never worship any god that was proven. If someone proved the existence (somehow) of a truly benevolent and all-loving god, I might worship that. But the proof for any god is weaker than wet tissue paper, so I'm sticking with atheism.

Well considering the person who replied to my post stated something that wasn't even relevant.. I don't see how I can discuss this further. There is evidence to science. Only a christian fundamentalist would reject that.

That's a very bland and unknowledgeable statement. Of course science looks to "evidence", but only in the way that theology and philosophy look to evidence. If something has been observed, that thing will be incorporated into a scientific theory, but at the end, it remains just a theory. How can you say that anything is "proven" when each "proven" thing disagrees with the last "proven" thing? And, like The Avesta started to say, quantum mechanics and relativity disagree because they are separate theories developed around different data sets, and cannot be connected because they were both pulled out of thin air. Physicists have observed a force that they cannot explain, based on something that they cannot observe, so they invented the idea of particles called "gravitons", even though there is no evidence for the existence of such particles. Science could have just as easily explained everything in terms of Greek gods, but all the while developing equations that match the observed data.

EXACTLY. And that's why, even if I believed him to exist -- which I don't -- I would not be inspired to follow his word or obey his law.

"Personality" is no justification for being an evil tyrant.

The evil tyrant who gave up His glories in Heaven and came to Earth to die for our sins because He doesn't want us to be in hell. What an evil tyrant!! :rolleyes:

That's a very bland and unknowledgeable statement. Of course science looks to "evidence", but only in the way that theology and philosophy look to evidence. If something has been observed, that thing will be incorporated into a scientific theory, but at the end, it remains just a theory. How can you say that anything is "proven" when each "proven" thing disagrees with the last "proven" thing? And, like The Avesta started to say, quantum mechanics and relativity disagree because they are separate theories developed around different data sets, and cannot be connected because they were both pulled out of thin air. Physicists have observed a force that they cannot explain, based on something that they cannot observe, so they invented the idea of particles called "gravitons", even though there is no evidence for the existence of such particles. Science could have just as easily explained everything in terms of Greek gods, but all the while developing equations that match the observed data.

Okay enough.. look at my post and find where I said anything about physics, let alone science! Please. Here is my post:

"Thank goodness the christian god does not exist and is not proveable.. because I'm getting tired of hearing about the story of Sodom and Gommorah. Let me state something.. I don't believe such a being exists that would condemn me to hell and would allow Neo to go to heaven. I don't believe any of it exists. The christian religion is filled with holes, hypocrisy and lies.

The christian fallacies do annoy me, but I no longer get upset by these people. They are irrelevant to my life and to my happiness. They want to subject me to misery. I will not listen to people who want to do that to me. They can continue believeing their contradictory believes and they can continue to believe they are only the good ones to go into some ridiculous afterlife paradise."

---

In that post I said nothing about science. I was strictly talking about how I feel towards christianity. Now please, if you want to talk about science there are other threads for it.

The evil tyrant who gave up His glories in Heaven and came to Earth to die for our sins because He doesn't want us to be in hell. What an evil tyrant!!

How did he give up his glories when he still has them, when he is still in heaven? He's God, he can't die. What does it matter if he decided he'd go spend a few days on a cross? It's not as if it has made any difference to him in the long run.

How did he give up his glories when he still has them, when he is still in heaven? He's God, he can't die. What does it matter if he decided he'd go spend a few days on a cross? It's not as if it has made any difference to him in the long run.

That's right. It doesn't make much of a difference to Him, but it makes, literally, a hell of a difference of us.

And I'm very honoured you used your first post on this. :D Welcome to Nationstates.

The evil tyrant who gave up His glories in Heaven and came to Earth to die for our sins because He doesn't want us to be in hell. What an evil tyrant!! :rolleyes:

If he doesn't want us to be in Hell, all he has to do is not send us there. According to you people, he makes the rules!!

So, he is both sadistic and masochistic... He enjoys causing suffering, and -- rather than relinquish the grand threat of eternal torture -- takes suffering on himself as well.

Not exactly my kind of guy. Serious issues, you know?

God knows I have nothing better to do. :p

I figure I'd just engage in some light hearted idiocy to pass the night away, you know. And thanks.

I have a feeling it's not a word either, heh. It's "neglect", isn't it? :p

No. I'm saying, we should all become Christians and look after each other while trying to get on with life. :D

My point is that if the Bible didn't make people feel so inferior, they wouldn't need so much looking after. Therefore, a different philosophy would be more appropriate. The Bible is a lot like Sigmund Freud, who invented people's problems and what to do about them. People should take some confidence in their own strength.

If he doesn't want us to be in Hell, all he has to do is not send us there. According to you people, he makes the rules!!

So, he is both sadistic and masochistic... He enjoys causing suffering, and -- rather than relinquish the grand threat of eternal torture -- takes suffering on himself as well.

Not exactly my kind of guy. Serious issues, you know?

Your point sort of extends into "Why God created humans with free will in the first place". Dunno. He felt like it? He gave you free will, and therefore if you don't respond with your free will, it's just, unreasonable.

I'll let you in on a bit of a secret: there is no God. It was just a big college joke that got out of hand.

God knows I have nothing better to do. :p

I figure I'd just engage in some light hearted idiocy to pass the night away, you know. And thanks.

How do you know God knows that you have nothing better to do?

Nationstates is very much about idiocy. Don't just discuss the BIG issues. Have a lot of fun and ignore the trolls. :D

Nationstates is very much about idiocy. Don't just discuss the BIG issues. Have a lot of fun and ignore the trolls. :D

The statement is a trolling..

My point is that if the Bible didn't make people feel so inferior, they wouldn't need so much looking after. Therefore, a different philosophy would be more appropriate. The Bible is a lot like Sigmund Freud, who invented people's problems and what to do about them. People should take some confidence in their own strength.

Of course God gave us the ability and power to solve our problems. But sometimes these problems are just too big and can't be solved by ourselves. That is where the power of God truly begins.

How do you know God knows that you have nothing better to do?

I asked. He also said that he really has no problems with gays it's white straight males from middle America that he can't stand.

I´d just like to point out that the "christian" God is also the Islamic and Jewish GOD, all the books have the same root "the Old testament", ok differing versions but nevertheless the same.

The question about the existance of god being proven is quite amazing, you only have to look arround you to see the obvious. Does anyone seriously think all this could happen by accident?.

Go outside on a clear night and lie somewhere and stare at the stars for while, then ask yourself if there is a GOD :D

Your point sort of extends into "Why God created humans with free will in the first place". Dunno. He felt like it? He gave you free will, and therefore if you don't respond with your free will, it's just, unreasonable.

Creating free will is one thing.

Creating free will and setting unreasonable consequences is another.

If Christians told me that God decreed that people have free will, and be punished in proportion to their wrong-doing -- a karma-like sense of retribution -- I would see no inconsistency in his also being a "loving" God.

But giving people free will and then damning them to Hell for eternity does not conform to any standard of justice. It's simply ridiculous. Hence, I conclude that such a God cannot be "loving." Instead, he seems cruel and sadistic.

As I see it, you can't have it both ways: either you have a loving God, or you have eternal damnation. The two are mutually exclusive.

Of course, I don't think you have a God at all, so for me the point is moot.

I asked. He also said that he really has no problems with gays it's white straight males from middle America that he can't stand.

Are you sure he said that? The last time I talked to him he told me that only the Chinese were accepted and all Americans will go to hell...[/joke]

No. God accepts everybody and has a mission for everybody.

Your point sort of extends into "Why God created humans with free will in the first place". Dunno. He felt like it? He gave you free will, and therefore if you don't respond with your free will, it's just, unreasonable.

I believe in free will as well, and I believe that most people don't use it, and instead let the needs of their physical bodies make all their choices (e.g. instinct for survival, fear, desire for food and sexual gratification). It takes a strong person who knows who he is to choose to make his life into a living representation of his soul.

all humans are fundamentaly flawed we all sin an fragg up ie :(we all die) so i wouldnt convert even if there was a scientificaly proven god simply becouse
1, our science is flawed becouse we are human
2, the devil would wish to appear as god (prove 1 u prove existance of both)
3,whos to say the test wont be manipulated by the evil entity known as the devil ?
4, whos to say the test wont be manipulated to start armageddon by justifying all other religions are incorrect becouse we humans so love to fight

so basicaly i will stick to the laws i know to be right on this mudball of a planet an if there is a god i know he/she/it wont wish to toat my ass so badly becouse atleat i did my best being flawed to ensure i walked a deacent path even if i slipped up now an then

Creating free will is one thing.

Creating free will and setting unreasonable consequences is another.

If Christians told me that God decreed that people have free will, and be punished in proportion to their wrong-doing -- a karma-like sense of retribution -- I would see no inconsistency in his also being a "loving" God.

But giving people free will and then damning them to Hell for eternity does not conform to any standard of justice. It's simply ridiculous. Hence, I conclude that such a God cannot be "loving." Instead, he seems cruel and sadistic.

As I see it, you can't have it both ways: either you have a loving God, or you have eternal damnation. The two are mutually exclusive.

Of course, I don't think you have a God at all, so for me the point is moot.

But you've missed the most important point. He gave you free will, and by this free will we chose to sin rather than worship Him, and that's why humans should end up in Hell. Free will doesn't lead to hell. Sinning does.

Why is that when we lovingly pat children on the back, and rub them their tummies and tell them "Oh, honey there are no monsters under your bed." this is being reasonable, yet these very same parents will turn around and send their children to learn about an invisible man in the sky who apperently has a problem with how much I masturbate and what materials have gone into the clothing I'm wearing?

"100% cotton!? DAMNED BE THEE HEATHEN!"

The christian heaven is only good for christians. The rest of us are going to hell. Some logic. :rolleyes:

Does anyone seriously think all this could happen by accident?
Yes, I do.
Go outside on a clear night and lie somewhere and stare at the stars for while, then ask yourself if there is a GOD.
Okay... I did that.

You know what? The whole thing seemed a lot more awe-inspiring when I thought it arose through the random chances of nature alone. If there were an artist behind all this, he could have done a lot better.

But that such magnificent beauty should arise purely through the operation of natural law? Now that is beautiful. And awesome.

Thinking about a Creator is... well, disappointing.

Are you sure he said that? The last time I talked to him he told me that only the Chinese were accepted and all Americans will go to hell...[/joke]

No. God accepts everybody and has a mission for everybody.

You see, I think we can forge a workable religion out of this, but the problem is that it's too bogged down in decadent religions. Most importantly, the Old Testament has to be cut off. It's a horrible document that encourages cowardice, despair, and greed.

But you've missed the most important point. He gave you free will, and by this free will we chose to sin rather than worship Him, and that's why humans should end up in Hell. Free will doesn't lead to hell. Sinning does.

Yeah, but only because God decreed that it does.

This is like a government declaring that wearing blue will get you executed, then claiming that they don't kill you... wearing blue does!!

I´d like to point out that various negative comments about GOD (wanting us in HELL, being a tyrant) are based on misinformation, The Cathoic church used to and probably still does try and scare people into doing what they want by threatening them with HELL, and Gods wrath. The church only did this to give itself more power and influence.

Anyone witha bit of common sense can see that the Church has nothing to do with GOD or the christian religion. Look at the wealth and Gold the churches have whilst others are starving, remeber Jesus´s "camel though eye of the needle" comment.

Apart from that, most of the churches practices are Pagan taken over so that the transition would be easier for the people. Jesus wasn´t born on dec 25, it was a day when the Sun was worshiped so it would come back for the sommer.

open your heart and see the truth

Yes, I do.

Okay... I did that.

You know what? The whole thing seemed a lot more awe-inspiring when I thought it arose through the random chances of nature alone. If there were an artist behind all this, he could have done a lot better.

But that such magnificent beauty should arise purely through the operation of natural law? Now that is beautiful. And awesome.

Thinking about a Creator is... well, disappointing.

I think souls are real, and the physical world is an experience. I guess an analogy would be like playing a video game. If I'm Mario, I can stand around and wait until my time runs out, or I can rescue the Princess. In the end, no matter what, the game will end, but I would prefer rescue the Princess.

I´d like to point out that various negative comments about GOD (wanting us in HELL, being a tyrant) are based on misinformation,

Please respond to the biblical citations a few pages back. If God's reputation for judgment and damnation are due to misinformation, then the gospel writers themselves must be misinformed... and if that's the case, I don't see where the point is in listening to anything else they have to say.

I think souls are real, and the physical world is an experience. I guess an analogy would be like playing a video game. If I'm Mario, I can stand around and wait until my time runs out, or I can rescue the Princess. In the end, no matter what, the game will end, but I would prefer rescue the Princess.

Ah, but if this were Mario, the powerful entity ruling the Mushroom Kingdom would be... King Koopa!

In that case, I too would want to rescue the Princess... and I would be more than happy to dunk God in the lava to do it. ;)

The statement that He condemns you to Hell, in this case, implies that he is actually responsible for your eternal fate. This is simply not true, those who fail to accept the sacrifice that He didn't even have to make for us in the first place are damning themselves.
Of course he is responsible for our eternal fate if he exists as described. Who created everything perhaps with the exception of God? Why it was God...now you can suggest the humans fell into sin, but sin is something that is not God, so God invented sin, not us, it's God's fault it was there to fall into. Not to mention the temptation business with the serpent. The serpent is something that is not God, so God provided the serpent, the sin, the tree, the rule that it was a sin to break, the capacity and nature to break the rule given all the provocations (which he gave in spades) and God also set the punishment (as absolute arbitrator of all justice), deciding that justice merited punishing babies, not yet even born to this day....

Everything was caused by God. What one aspect did humans cause (including in our individual lives) that God was not the ultimate instigator or? This free choice thing, who even said we wanted it? No one, God just gave it to us, and then set things us so that there was sin, we would sin, and sin would result in great hardship for a very long time, punishing people not born or given any choice in the whole 'original sin' business that they are now being punished for...for an omnibenevolent deity, God sure does make a good sociopath... :confused:

To top it all off, now this wonderful example of goodness justice and love, is going to allow me to burn in hell, because despite what you say, I cannot choose to believe in God, anymore than I can choose to believe in pink and green stripped, belly dancing hobb-goblins. :mad:

I cannot choose to believe in God, anymore than I can choose to believe in pink and green stripped, belly dancing hobb-goblins. :mad:

hehe... Although I might like to believe in pink and green stripping, belly-dancing hobgoblins. That would be neat. ;)

Actually, As I see it the literal interpretaion of the Bible is something that people do too often. ie "Burning in Hell" was a metaphor and if you read other sections of the Bible it explains this. Hell is a place of Eternal Seperation from God. It is not a place created by God for Punishment. It is more of a place where God has withdrawn himself. Reason being he can't stand sin, meaning sin cannot exist with God and any of us if shown his majesty would just die from sheer overwhelming brilliance and our own sinfulness. So Hell is not a literal place of Eternal Torment but Eternal Seperation from a Loving God which as the New Testament Writers say is about the same as etenal Torment. Oh and God reveals himself to those who truly seek him. Not just to anyone who says "OK, If God shows himself to me, I'll believe it." The only people God showed himself to in the Bible are those men who were closest to him and they were overwhelmed by his sheer majesty and had to prostrate themselves and beg for forgiveness because when you are in the presence of God and look at yourself, You see the true ugliness of your sinfulness.

hehe... Although I might like to believe in pink and green stripping, belly-dancing hobgoblins. That would be neat. ;)
Are you sure, I mean, wouldnt they be ugly enough clothed...? :eek:

Anyway God wont let them strip for real, it might lead to hobgoblin sin :fluffle: , and apparently hell is booking-up fast...at this rate there'll be no pizza left for any latecomers... :p

Actually, As I see it the literal interpretaion of the Bible is something that people do too often. ie "Burning in Hell" was a metaphor and if you read other sections of the Bible it explains this.
Which sections?
Hell is a place of Eternal Seperation from God. It is not a place created by God for Punishment. It is more of a place where God has withdrawn himself. Reason being he can't stand sin, meaning sin cannot exist with God
What a baby! My Mom can't stand my music, but she never kicked me out of the house for playing it!
So Hell is not a literal place of Eternal Torment but Eternal Seperation from a Loving God which as the New Testament Writers say is about the same as etenal Torment.
As far as I can tell, I'm already pretty separated from him. I have utterly no sense of God... and yet I do not feel tormented. So, I guess they were wrong.
The only people God showed himself to in the Bible are those men who were closest to him and they were overwhelmed by his sheer majesty and had to prostrate themselves and beg for forgiveness because when you are in the presence of God and look at yourself, You see the true ugliness of your sinfulness.
Now THAT sounds like torment!!!!

Are you sure, I mean, wouldnt they be ugly enough clothed...? :eek:
What can I say? I have a twisted sense of humor. As you know, I'm going to Hell for it! ;)
Anyway God wont let them strip for real, it might lead to hobgoblin sin :fluffle: , and apparently hell is booking-up fast...at this rate there'll be no pizza left for any latecomers... :p
Indeed! And no pizza? That would be Hell!! (Good reason to be on the fast-track, right?) ;)

What a baby! My Mom can't stand my music, but she never kicked me out of the house for playing it!

The fact of the matter is that in God's Infinite Goodness, and his being Omniscient and Omnipotent he would have to destroy Sin. But, since he loves us he gives us a chance to redeem ourselves. Through the gift of Grace from Jesus Christ

As far as I can tell, I'm already pretty separated from him. I have utterly no sense of God... and yet I do not feel tormented. So, I guess they were wrong.

The point is Imagine spending Eternity seprated not just from God but Everyone and Everything. Picture That.

The fact of the matter is that in God's Infinite Goodness, and his being Omniscient and Omnipotent he would have to destroy Sin. But, since he loves us he gives us a chance to redeem ourselves. Through the gift of Grace from Jesus Christ

If he really loves us so much, why does he damn us in the first place? Why not punish us in proportion to our sins? Or, if we sin and then try to atone, or become better people... why does he demand that we worship him in order to get salvation?

He seems like a very selfish and petty god to me.

The point is Imagine spending Eternity seprated not just from God but Everyone and Everything. Picture That.

Actually, from the sound of things it's going to be a lot more lonely in Heaven than in Hell. I'll have plenty of company, right?

If he really loves us so much, why does he damn us in the first place? Why not punish us in proportion to our sins? Or, if we sin and then try to atone, or become better people... why does he demand that we worship him in order to get salvation?

He seems like a very selfish and petty god to me.

The point the Bible makes is that all Sins are equal in God's Eyes. Lieing is as bad as Killing. The Hierarchy of Sins is a completely Human Construct used as some sort of Justification. That we use to make ourselves feel better.

The other point that God makes in the Bible and I happen to agree is that he deserves to be worshipped. And he deserves to be worshipped by people who want to worship him. I think another common misconception is that in Heaven you will just be singing to God all the time when in actuality you will be doing whatever you want and will have no desire to sin anymore. And as far as God being petty and selfish. That's a load if someone is Infinitely Good, Powerful and Knowledgeable, I can think of nothing else that would deserve worship. He deserves It. He knows It. Arrogance? No. His Divine Right? Yes.


Actually, from the sound of things it's going to be a lot more lonely in Heaven than in Hell. I'll have plenty of company, right?

Well, I imagine it will be more like you are eternally in prison with no contact with anyone else. I don't think everyone who goes to hell get's thrown into one large pit so much as they get imprisoned by themselves.

The point the Bible makes is that all Sins are equal in God's Eyes. Lieing is as bad as Killing. The Hierarchy of Sins is a completely Human Construct used as some sort of Justification. That we use to make ourselves feel better.
Do you really believe that that makes any sense? Why would God give us reason if his rule were going to be completely irrational?
The other point that God makes in the Bible and I happen to agree is that he deserves to be worshipped.
So maybe he deserves it. But why does he care so much about it? What kind of severe ego malfunction does he have?

I think another common misconception is that in Heaven you will just be singing to God all the time when in actuality you will be doing whatever you want and will have no desire to sin anymore.
Right... so you get to do "whatever you want" after God makes it so that you have no desire to do anything but what he wants.

So after proving that you can use free will responsibly, God takes it away?

His Divine Right? Yes.

Maybe. But loving people give up rights all the time to make their loved ones happy. Is their love so much stronger than Gods?

Well, I imagine it will be more like you are eternally in prison with no contact with anyone else. I don't think everyone who goes to hell get's thrown into one large pit so much as they get imprisoned by themselves.

Well, and truth for all of us does seem to come down to "what you think", doesn't it? Why should I believe that Hell is a certain way? Why should I believe in Hell at all?

The point the Bible makes is that all Sins are equal in God's Eyes.

Where exactly does the Bible make this point, anyway? From what I can tell, it says the exact opposite.

What does Jesus say to Pilate? "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:11)

Also Matthew 12:31, "Because some sins are not capable of pardon as others are, therefore they must needs be more heinous, as the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

After reading the entire fascinating 28 pages of this thread, I feel compliments are in order. :)

First, I want to compliment the non-Christians on your honesty and investigative questioning/debating. Each of you brought unique perspectives that allowed this thread to flourish. I also want to thank you for answering the poll, which I found quite interesting. Please continue.

Second, I want to compliment the Christians for your intriguing and intelligent posts, for your level-headedness, and for your fine job at representing what I believe. From what I could tell, questions were answered, there wasn't a lot of hot blood, and there were not many thoughts of mine that went unspoken.

Finally, I simply want to compliment God, as I find Him utterly perfect and am surprised by the number of posts that consider him an evil, sadistic, uncaring, and neglectful tyrant.

[Reads Psalm 100 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20100&version=31)]
Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth. Worship the Lord with gladness; come before him with joyful songs.
Know that the Lord is God. It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture.
Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name.
For the Lord is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations.

I doubt I'd convert, I don't like the idea of unquestioning loyalty to anyone or anything so worshipping a god would be completely against my personal ethics.

Finally, I simply want to compliment God, as I find Him utterly perfect and am surprised by the number of posts that consider him an evil, sadistic, uncaring, and neglectful tyrant.

Well, that's just the impression we get from reading the Bible... and listening to Christians tell us how we atheists are all doomed to Hell, regardless of how morally upstanding we are.

My understanding is that according to Christians, a monk who spends his entire life in quiet contemplation of how great God is would be more worthy of heaven than an atheist who cures cancer.

To me, something about that just seems fucked up.

To put it bluntly:

Any god deserving of my worship wouldn't care in the slightest to have it.

Where exactly does the Bible make this point, anyway? From what I can tell, it says the exact opposite.

What does Jesus say to Pilate? "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:11)

Also Matthew 12:31, "Because some sins are not capable of pardon as others are, therefore they must needs be more heinous, as the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

These two verses are refering to the Unpardonable Sin. I forgot about it and I apologize for being misleading. This sin is the rejection of God and is the only sin God will not forgive. also look at Mark 3:28

If the Christian God did exist, i wouldn't convert. I'd just stick two fingers up to him and let the bearded sod smite me.

To put it bluntly:

Any god deserving of my worship wouldn't care in the slightest to have it.

Check out this Verse Exodus 34:13-14
"But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),"

Maybe you don't think God deserves it. But He does and he knows he does. I am being repetetive but I think that God has every right to ask us to worship us. I mean he Created Us. Without him we would not be here. I think that we should be extremely grateful.

These two verses are refering to the Unpardonable Sin. I forgot about it and I apologize for being misleading. This sin is the rejection of God and is the only sin God will not forgive. also look at Mark 3:28

If that's the case, why does Luke say that to sin in ignorance is not as bad as to sin knowingly? "That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:46-47)

Or why does Jesus say that if you break one of the "least" commandments, you will go to Heaven, but not get as great a heavenly reward as if you had kept the commandments? "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19)

Maybe you don't think God deserves it. But He does and he knows he does. I am being repetetive but I think that God has every right to ask us to worship us. I mean he Created Us. Without him we would not be here. I think that we should be extremely grateful.

Look, if God created us, then sure -- we should be grateful. (Or should we? What about all the people whose lives are nothing but suffering and misery?) Nevertheless, I don't think that ingratitude is a sin worthy of eternal damnation. And any God who would damn me to Hell for forgetting to say "thank you" is not the sort of god I would worship anyway.

Don't you think the punishment is far out of proportion to the crime? I mean, seriously. It comes down to a problem of ingratitude. To make the parent-child analogy again... what parent would damn their child to Hell for being ungrateful???

If that's the case, why does Luke say that to sin in ignorance is not as bad as to sin knowingly? "That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:46-47)

Or why does Jesus say that if you break one of the "least" commandments, you will go to Heaven, but not get as great a heavenly reward as if you had kept the commandments? "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19)

Jesus is teaching to us in Human Terms. Terms we can understand. The Bible teaches if you sin you still go to Heaven If you believe in God and Jesus Christ. The only difference is you are to try your very best not to Sin. I think that Jesus is definatley using the words that we would use to teach us that God will forgive. Bear in Mind Jesus is Human as well as Divine. God sees all Sins as Sin and will forgive them all as such. Except for the Unpardonable one. I think these verses are being applied to real world Human Situations which do see a hierarchy of Sins. God does not but he understandds that we do so he uses that for teaching purposes.

Worse, we're supposed to be grateful to a God who hasn't done anything for us in at least a few thousand years?

That's like saying I should be grateful to the birth-parents who threw me in a dumpster to be found by someone who would actually care for me.

(Just an example, I am not really adopted.)

Even if God came to me personally, and demanded I join up..I would politely refuse.

Ive seen to much crap given to humanity in general, and seen some really awful things that no loving god would ever allow.

I would not..could not..as a moral person, willingly follow such logic.

*snip*

What makes your interpretation better than mine? I give those passages the straight-forward interpretation that I think they deserve. They say some sins are worse than others. I give them credit for saying that some sins are worse than others.

Interpreting things "figuratively" is one thing, but now you're asking me to believe that the Bible means the exact opposite of what it says?

Well, I want to know on what grounds. Why should I believe that you know that the words are supposed to mean the opposite of what they literally say?

It looks an awful lot like you have decided in advance what you believe, and you are "making" the Bible say it. That seems pretty arrogant... and hardly respectful of "God's Word."

Look, if God created us, then sure -- we should be grateful. (Or should we? What about all the people whose lives are nothing but suffering and misery?) Nevertheless, I don't think that ingratitude is a sin worthy of eternal damnation. And any God who would damn me to Hell for forgetting to say "thank you" is not the sort of god I would worship anyway.

Don't you think the punishment is far out of proportion to the crime? I mean, seriously. It comes down to a problem of ingratitude. To make the parent-child analogy again... what parent would damn their child to Hell for being ungrateful???

The point is that God is condemning us to Hell for our Sinful Nature which is Human Nature. He is asking us to reject our natural urges for a greater joy in Heaven. Ingratitude is part of the problem but there are definately more factors at work than just that. I believe you are taking an extremely narrow view of what God is trying to say. The original sin of Adam damned the entire Human Race that came from him. Our original Sin was rebellion against God. Basically Treason. As far as I can see in Human Terms that is a little bit more serious than Ingratitude.

What makes your interpretation better than mine? I give those passages the straight-forward interpretation that I think they deserve. They say some sins are worse than others. I give them credit for saying that some sins are worse than others.

Interpreting things "figuratively" is one thing, but now you're asking me to believe that the Bible means the exact opposite of what it says?

Well, I want to know on what grounds. Why should I believe that you know that the words are supposed to mean the opposite of what they literally say?

It looks an awful lot like you have decided in advance what you believe, and you are "making" the Bible say it. That seems pretty arrogant... and hardly respectful of "God's Word."

Well, I say that you are taking most of these verses out of the context of the Bible as a whole. Also it's not like you are not interpreting the Bible in your own way. None of us can completely ditch our suppositions and Beliefs. A good way to look at the Bible is to read commentaries by People who actually know what they are talking about. People who have spent their careers studying the Bible. IE: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin and many more theologians. These are the guys who know what they are talking about.

Worse, we're supposed to be grateful to a God who hasn't done anything for us in at least a few thousand years?

That's like saying I should be grateful to the birth-parents who threw me in a dumpster to be found by someone who would actually care for me.

(Just an example, I am not really adopted.)

Right, all you need to do is interpret History in a different way. It could be argued and it is true that being able to think critically is a gift from God. Therefore all the major advancements in everything in the last 300 years are gifts from God. While some use there gifts to further the cause of Christ others try to take God out of the picture because they do not want to believe that they answer to someone which is the basis for Human Rebellion.

The problem here is that some people seem to think that God's sentencing need not conform to the dictates of rational ethics. Thus, if God says all crimes are equivalent, they are.

This is completely absurd.

Suppose a man is walking along, and suddenly a booming voice from the heavens talks to him. (Add a burning bush, pillar of flame, glistening stairway, or other special effects as you like.)

Booming Voice: "I am the Lord thy God!! Obey me!!"
Man: "Whoa!! Umm... all right. What do you want me to do?"
Voice: "You must go to the nearest orphanage and slaughter every child that you find. Eviscerate them and burn their entrails while they yet live."
Man: "Umm... That's pretty awful. Why must I do this thing?"
Voice: "Do not question why!! I am God, and I say it must be done! That is enough."
Man: "Well, I'm afraid I just can't do that. It isn't right."
Voice: "It is right if I say it is! Now go! Do my bidding!"
Man: "Give me a reason."
Voice: "You would not understand."
Man: "Well, then I have to pass. In fact, I'm beginning to think you're not God at all. God would not demand such injustice for no rational reason."
Voice: "You will be damned forever if you do not obey me!!"
Man: "Then I'll be damned. But I'm not going to compromise my own ethics without a reason."

Of course, that's what the ethically minded man would do. If it were a religious man, along the model presented by Christian posters to this discussion, it would go more like this:

Voice: "I am the Lord thy God!! Go to the nearest orphanage and slaughter every child you meet!!"
Man: "Whoa!! God!! You're talking to me, personally? Well, I'll do anything!! Sure thing!! ... Should I use an axe, or just bite into their little bellies with my teeth and fingernails?"

Right, all you need to do is interpret History in a different way. It could be argued and it is true that being able to think critically is a gift from God. Therefore all the major advancements in everything in the last 300 years are gifts from God. While some use there gifts to further the cause of Christ others try to take God out of the picture because they do not want to believe that they answer to someone which is the basis for Human Rebellion.


You dont give your posts much forethought do you?

You say that "it could be argued" and then "and it is true" ...that the mere ability to think critically "comes from God".

Oh..you can prove that can you?

No......I didnt think so.

Therefore...what you SHOULD have said was.."It is my opinion, that critical thinking comes from God."


Dont be so presumptious.

I believe you are taking an extremely narrow view of what God is trying to say.

I'm only working with the view being presented here.

The original sin of Adam damned the entire Human Race that came from him. Our original Sin was rebellion against God. Basically Treason. As far as I can see in Human Terms that is a little bit more serious than Ingratitude.

Adam's original sin was eating the fruit from a forbidden tree, right? That seems tantamount to stealing from the cookie jar, not treason. It's not like Adam made any attempt to take God off from his throne, right? He just ate a damned fruit!!

The problem here is that some people seem to think that God's sentencing need not conform to the dictates of rational ethics. Thus, if God says all crimes are equivalent, they are.

This is completely absurd.

Suppose a man is walking along, and suddenly a booming voice from the heavens talks to him. (Add a burning bush, pillar of flame, glistening stairway, or other special effects as you like.)

Booming Voice: "I am the Lord thy God!! Obey me!!"
Man: "Whoa!! Umm... all right. What do you want me to do?"
Voice: "You must go to the nearest orphanage and slaughter every child that you find. Eviscerate them and burn their entrails while they yet live."
Man: "Umm... That's pretty awful. Why must I do this thing?"
Voice: "Do not question why!! I am God, and I say it must be done! That is enough."
Man: "Well, I'm afraid I just can't do that. It isn't right."
Voice: "It is right if I say it is! Now go! Do my bidding!"
Man: "Give me a reason."
Voice: "You would not understand."
Man: "Well, then I have to pass. In fact, I'm beginning to think you're not God at all. God would not demand such injustice for no rational reason."
Voice: "You will be damned forever if you do not obey me!!"
Man: "Then I'll be damned. But I'm not going to compromise my own ethics without a reason."

Of course, that's what the ethically minded man would do. If it were a religious man, along the model presented by Christian posters to this discussion, it would go more like this:

Voice: "I am the Lord thy God!! Go to the nearest orphanage and slaughter every child you meet!!"
Man: "Whoa!! God!! You're talking to me, personally? Well, I'll do anything!! Sure thing!! ... Should I use an axe, or just bite into their little bellies with my teeth and fingernails?"


Fairly harsh....but I have to agree.

I'm only working with the view being presented here.



Adam's original sin was eating the fruit from a forbidden tree, right? That seems tantamount to stealing from the cookie jar, not treason. It's not like Adam made any attempt to take God off from his throne, right? He just ate a damned fruit!!


Keeping in mind that the apple represents knowledge..

This means that God got pissed, when Adam learned of things God didnt want him to know.

Apparently...God prefers Adam to be ignorant.

Well, I think that God does set Moral Standards and he could probably change them at will if he wanted to. The point I am trying to make is that God is unchanging and it says that numerous timed in the Bible. Whether you want to believe in God or not, In my opinion he exists and I am not trying to force that on anyone just trying to make it known as a valid option. By the way, you have a very cynical view of God. All I want to say is that God Loves you. Whether you want to accept that or not. It's up to you. And that's God doing that too.

A good way to look at the Bible is to read commentaries by People who actually know what they are talking about. People who have spent their careers studying the Bible. IE: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin and many more theologians. These are the guys who know what they are talking about.

I have read Augustine's Confessions and the City of God. I have read Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

Both of them thought that God set down laws in conformity with rationally discoverable morality. God says things are right because they are right; they are not right because God says so.

I have also read significant portions of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. He is more complex about it, but nevertheless comes down as saying that through reason we can know what is just.

I admit that I have not read much Luther, so I can't vouch as much for what he says. But I do know that he thought individuals should read the Bible as a guide to knowing their own soul... and that the law of God is already written in each soul. It seems likely that he would also agree that we can rationally know what is just.

Thus, if the Bible says something that does not conform to reason, all of these theologians would say: "Go with reason."

Well, I think that God does set Moral Standards and he could probably change them at will if he wanted to. The point I am trying to make is that God is unchanging and it says that numerous timed in the Bible. Whether you want to believe in God or not, In my opinion he exists and I am not trying to force that on anyone just trying to make it known as a valid option. By the way, you have a very cynical view of God. All I want to say is that God Loves you. Whether you want to accept that or not. It's up to you. And that's God doing that too.

God loves me does he?

How do you know?

Cause its in the bible?

I know that a 15 year old boy in England goes to a school of wizards.
His name is Harry.
Its in a book too.

I'm only working with the view being presented here.



Adam's original sin was eating the fruit from a forbidden tree, right? That seems tantamount to stealing from the cookie jar, not treason. It's not like Adam made any attempt to take God off from his throne, right? He just ate a damned fruit!!

The fact of the Matter is God made One and only one Law. Don't eat the fruit. Now, the Angel who led an actual Rebellion against God. Got God's wondrous Creation to break the One and Only Law God made for Him. By convincing Adam and Eve that they could be like God. I'd say that is Treason.

The fact of the Matter is God made One and only one Law. Don't eat the fruit. Now, the Angel who led an actual Rebellion against God. Got God's wondrous Creation to break the One and Only Law God made for Him. By convincing Adam and Eve that they could be like God. I'd say that is Treason.


I think you should look up the word "treason."

Or treachery.

Adam did not set out to be treacherous..he was decived.....BIG difference.

I think your ignoring what you know to be true, in order to defend your religion.

I have read Augustine's Confessions and the City of God. I have read Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

Both of them thought that God set down laws in conformity with rationally discoverable morality. God says things are right because they are right; they are not right because God says so.

I have also read significant portions of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. He is more complex about it, but nevertheless comes down as saying that through reason we can know what is just.

I admit that I have not read much Luther, so I can't vouch as much for what he says. But I do know that he thought individuals should read the Bible as a guide to knowing their own soul... and that the law of God is already written in each soul. It seems likely that he would also agree that we can rationally know what is just.

Thus, if the Bible says something that does not conform to reason, all of these theologians would say: "Go with reason."


While you make a good point. I would say that even though that is there conclusion all of these Theologians belived in God because as they saw it. The Bible was reasonable and I have nothing that says it is not either. All these Theologians are sitting in Heaven Right now. The reason being they believed that the Bible told the Truth.

Now, the Angel who led an actual Rebellion against God. Got God's wondrous Creation to break the One and Only Law God made for Him. By convincing Adam and Eve that they could be like God. I'd say that is Treason.

My analogy still holds.

The serpent says to little Eve, "Eat the cookie. It will make you just like Mommy!"

"Just like Mommy? Wow! I love Mommy! I want to be big and tall, and smart and loving and funny, just like her!"

Doesn't every child want to be like her/his parent? Can we blame them?

I think you should look up the word "treason."

Or treachery.

Adam did not set out to be treacherous..he was decived.....BIG difference.

I think your ignoring what you know to be true, in order to defend your religion.

Adam knew the consequences of his Sin. That he would be doomed to Die if he ate the fruit. Treason is what Lucifer committed and Treason is what he got Adam to commit and we all commit Treason for giving into our sinful urges and doing things God would rather we did not do. I think Treason is the word that would best describe what we did to God.

While you make a good point. I would say that even though that is there conclusion all of these Theologians belived in God because as they saw it. The Bible was reasonable and I have nothing that says it is not either. All these Theologians are sitting in Heaven Right now. The reason being they believed that the Bible told the Truth.

Quick question: Have you read any of them?

My analogy still holds.

The serpent says to little Eve, "Eat the cookie. It will make you just like Mommy!"

"Just like Mommy? Wow! I love Mommy! I want to be big and tall, and smart and loving and funny, just like her!"

Doesn't every child want to be like her/his parent? Can we blame them?

But in your Analogy if Mommy tells his son not to eat the Cookie which is better to Obey Mommy or the Serpent. Becuase Mommy knows what best for her child.

Quick question: Have you read any of them?

I have read Confessions. As well as Martin Luther's Work and a book called The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis. Which stresses the importance of not giving into sinfulness and trying to be like Christ.

Adam knew the consequences of his Sin. That he would be doomed to Die if he ate the fruit.

Parents tell children all sorts of crazy things about the consequences they'll suffer if they disobey. Even little children are smart enough to figure out that most of it is hyperbole. Whatever Mommy says, we know the punishment won't really be that bad for eating the cookie.

And sure enough, God did lie about the fruit. He told Adam that he would "surely die." Did he? No. Sure, Christians -- long, long after the Hebrew text was written -- want to interpret this as some sort of metaphor for "spiritual death," but that is not a part of the original Jewish tradition, nor is it in any way implied by the text.

I have read Confessions.

Ah, what did you think of the long story about the pears? I find that to be one of his most interesting passages.

Adam knew the consequences of his Sin. That he would be doomed to Die if he ate the fruit. Treason is what Lucifer committed and Treason is what he got Adam to commit and we all commit Treason for giving into our sinful urges and doing things God would rather we did not do. I think Treason is the word that would best describe what we did to God.


I dont think you know what the definition of "treason" is.

Satan...might be guilty of treason.

Let me provide a dictionary for you...

"Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. "

Adam was duped.
He did not intend to betray God..nor work against him.
He was misled by Satan, into doing something he knew was wrong...thats not treason...thats called "gullibility".

Sheesh.

I wouldnt cuz like.. Im a muslim.. so 'your' god is 'my'god anyhow .. so I would stay muslim lol ..



:sniper: yeehooo

I don't believe that I have seen a thread on this before, so I figured I'd start one. Sorry if there already was one.

Note that this is entirely hypothetical, so don't respond by saying 'But God is an untestable hypothesis! Don't force religion on me!' I already know that.

Suppose, for a moment, that some enterprising scientist devised a reproducible experiment to show the existance of the Christian God. And, to the great surprise of many, the experiment's results turn out positive. Also suppose for a moment that the Gods of other religions have been proven not to exist.

Would you, in this case, convert to Christianity?
If I found out that the Christian God did, in fact, exist, I would not convert. The Christian God is petty, irrational, hate-filled, clearly insecure about the size of his penis, and alarmingly fixated in murdering first-born male children. His "words of love" read like the script for an abussive relationship, and I'm not weak enough to seek out that kind of "love."

If such a being insisted on insinuating itself into my life and my world, I would dedicate my life to eradicating it and its works, and freeing people from its power. If it killed me, or its followers did, then that would really suck, but I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice my honor or my human dignity just to placate a celestial tyrant.

Ah, what did you think of the long story about the pears? I find that to be one of his most interesting passages.

I enjoyed the part when he goes to Rome.

I wouldnt cuz like.. Im a muslim.. so 'your' god is 'my'god anyhow .. so I would stay muslim lol ..



:sniper: yeehooo


So...even if God came to you, and said..."Hey....the Muslim thing...yah, its not true...you should be a Mormon."

You wouldnt change?

"Violation of allegiance toward one's sovereign,"


I think this part of the definition should provide enough. Adam was in violation of Allegiance to God because he knew what he was doing was wrong. He did it anyway and I think he was not ignorant of the fact the serpent was an Enemy of God.

I enjoyed the part when he goes to Rome.

Well, it is funny how he couldn't stand his students. But what did you like about it?

I think this part of the definition should provide enough. Adam was in violation of Allegiance to God because he knew what he was doing was wrong. He did it anyway and I think he was not ignorant of the fact the serpent was an Enemy of God.


Really...show me where it says Adam knew that the Serpent was Satan.

Also....the man was tricked...hoodwinked...bamboozled.

Thats not treason....and you know it.

Thats gullibility...and not being very perceptive.
It makes Adam look like an idiot...but not one guilty of treason.

I think this part of the definition should provide enough. Adam was in violation of Allegiance to God because he knew what he was doing was wrong. He did it anyway and I think he was not ignorant of the fact the serpent was an Enemy of God.
Impossible. According to the myth, the fruit in question carried the knowledge of goodness and wickedness. Prior to eating the fruit, Adam could not have known eating it would be wrong because he would have no understanding of "wrong."

If your God was truly all seeing and all knowing, wouldnt he have known that Adam and Eve would get decieved into eating the fruit before he even created them?

So why did he tell them not to eat the fruit (and punish them for it) if he knew they were going to do it anyway? And furthermore, why did he put it within their reach?

I beleive that is called 'entrapment'.

Impossible. According to the myth, the fruit in question carried the knowledge of goodness and wickedness. Prior to eating the fruit, Adam could not have known eating it would be wrong because he would have no understanding of "wrong."
HaHA!! Good point, Bottle!

Well, it is funny how he couldn't stand his students. But what did you like about it?

I just was fascinated with the State Rome was in at the time. It was in sorry shape. I think it's funny how he got sick right when he got there and thought of going home again right away.

Impossible. According to the myth, the fruit in question carried the knowledge of goodness and wickedness. Prior to eating the fruit, Adam could not have known eating it would be wrong because he would have no understanding of "wrong."


oooooooh....Bottle with a nice left hook!

Im Catholic, and many times in church i find my self thinking of the bible, weither if ist true. If any of u have every seen the REd Dwarf Series there is a bit in it where in the news they find a lost page of the bible and it says all charcacters and events are fictional. Well ever read a really good fiction book or play a really good online or computer which is also like fanatasy fiction game. An get so involved in wat ever it is that u almost of even just a moment feel as thought that is real. Well wat happens if the bible was just a really good fiction book meant only to make the reader feel drawen in, if than maybe the author was some unknow writer who was damn good at it. Than somebody actually belived wat was in the book (bible) ans started a religon about it, and it grew and grew till it go to today. How do we know its just not a very good fiction book, no one i know was around wen all the things in it supposedly happen. You dont know

Impossible. According to the myth, the fruit in question carried the knowledge of goodness and wickedness. Prior to eating the fruit, Adam could not have known eating it would be wrong because he would have no understanding of "wrong."

Well, all I can say to that is that God told him not to eat the Fruit and That Adam understood he was not to eat the Fruit. I think Adam's Understanding of not wanting to disappoint God would have been real.

I already know the kristjian God (also known as the Jewish and Muslim God by the way) "exists". But that doesn't mean he should hold any special power over me - because every other God also "exists" in my worldview. I'm a panpolytheist Neo-Pagan/Indo-European Heathenist, and just because I believe a Deity exists, doesn't mean that my worldview commands me to worship them. There are probably thousands of Deities or other supernatural entities that I believe exist or have existed that I do not worship. The only Deities I worship are the Indo-European Gods, who I believe are the true Deities of my culture (however clouded and disrupted by kristjianity and hyumanizm it may have become in recent times). Scientific attempts to either "prove" or "disprove" the existence of any of these entities are irrelevent - I don't worship science either :p

If your God was truly all seeing and all knowing, wouldnt he have known that Adam and Eve would get decieved into eating the fruit before he even created them?

So why did he tell them not to eat the fruit (and punish them for it) if he knew they were going to do it anyway? And furthermore, why did he put it within their reach?

I beleive that is called 'entrapment'.

I believe that is called Free Will

I just was fascinated with the State Rome was in at the time. It was in sorry shape. I think it's funny how he got sick right when he got there and thought of going home again right away.

Oh, I was hoping for some theological insight. :(

Any thoughts on the pears? Or what about his relationship with Monica? Now THERE is an interesting story!!

Better yet, what did you think about his thoughts on how children learn language? He is very much like a scientist in all of this... Reason is his guide. Indeed, I am sure you remember his constant praise to God for giving him the reason to understand justice.

Well, all I can say to that is that God told him not to eat the Fruit and That Adam understood he was not to eat the Fruit. I think Adam's Understanding of not wanting to disappoint God would have been real.


But he wouldnt have known why eating it would have been wrong.

Not knowing of right and wrong you see...

But he wouldnt have known why eating it would have been wrong.

Not knowing of right and wrong you see...

Your missing the point he knew he wasn't supposed to do it and that alone should have been enough.

oooooooh....Bottle with a nice left hook!
If I'm understanding the argument, this is what it's adding up to:

1. Adam wasn't supposed to eat the apple, but he did, and that was treason against God's command.
2. Treason is a bad thing. Eve and Adam could not possible have know that treason is bad until after they ate the apple from the Tree Of Knowledge, but it was still bad and they should have (somehow) known better.
3. God got (rightfully) angry at Adam's treason because treason is a Bad Thing and God is Good. God doesn't want wickedness in paradise (which is why He put the Tree Of Knowledge of wickedness smack in the middle of paradise) so He could not allow Adam and Eve to stay once they learned what wickedness is.
4. God cast Adam and Eve out of paradise.
5. Plus, He said that all women forever will suffer the pain of childbirth because Eve submitted to a phalic symbol...I mean, a snake...rather than obeying her rightful male owner(s). This in no way is a parallel for the model of male priveledge under which a woman who interacts with a male other than her current male owner is a "slut" worthy of painful and grusome punishment.
5. Plus, He decreed that no humans could ever come back to paradise because now people would know the difference between right and wrong. And that is a Bad Thing.

Oh, I was hoping for some theological insight. :(

Any thoughts on the pears? Or what about his relationship with Monica? Now THERE is an interesting story!!

Better yet, what did you think about his thoughts on how children learn language? He is very much like a scientist in all of this... Reason is his guide. Indeed, I am sure you remember his constant praise to God for giving him the reason to understand justice.

I'll have to get back to you on that it has been some time since I read it.

I believe that is called Free Will



Its not free will if God knew all along Adam was going to eat the damn apple.

God knew what was going to happen..he allowed Adam to do it anyway.

He gave adam free will all right....excpet free will to know between good and evil..right and wrong....you call that free will?

Your missing the point he knew he wasn't supposed to do it and that alone should have been enough.

Yes, but without knowing the "why" it can't be treason.

I know I'm not supposed to divulge security secrets to foreign powers.
I also know I'm not supposed to jaywalk.

But it's only because I have the knowledge to tell the difference between the two that I know one is treasonous, and the other is just dangerous.

If I'm understanding the argument, this is what it's adding up to:

1. Adam wasn't supposed to eat the apple, but he did, and that was treason against God's command.
2. Treason is a bad thing. Eve and Adam could not possible have know that treason is bad until after they ate the apple from the Tree Of Knowledge, but it was still bad and they should have (somehow) known better.
3. God got (rightfully) angry at Adam's treason because treason is a Bad Thing and God is Good. God doesn't want wickedness in paradise (which is why He put the Tree Of Knowledge of wickedness smack in the middle of paradise) so He could not allow Adam and Eve to stay once they learned what wickedness is.
4. God cast Adam and Eve out of paradise.
5. Plus, He said that all women forever will suffer the pain of childbirth because Eve submitted to a phalic symbol...I mean, a snake...rather than obeying her rightful male owner(s). This in no way is a parallel for the model of male priveledge under which a woman who interacts with a male other than her current male owner is a "slut" worthy of painful and grusome punishment.
5. Plus, He decreed that no humans could ever come back to paradise because now people would know the difference between right and wrong. And that is a Bad Thing.


Ring the bell folks.....

If I'm understanding the argument, this is what it's adding up to:

1. Adam wasn't supposed to eat the apple, but he did, and that was treason against God's command.
2. Treason is a bad thing. Eve and Adam could not possible have know that treason is bad until after they ate the apple from the Tree Of Knowledge, but it was still bad and they should have (somehow) known better.
3. God got (rightfully) angry at Adam's treason because treason is a Bad Thing and God is Good. God doesn't want wickedness in paradise (which is why He put the Tree Of Knowledge of wickedness smack in the middle of paradise) so He could not allow Adam and Eve to stay once they learned what wickedness is.
4. God cast Adam and Eve out of paradise.
5. Plus, He said that all women forever will suffer the pain of childbirth because Eve submitted to a phalic symbol...I mean, a snake...rather than obeying her rightful male owner(s). This in no way is a parallel for the model of male priveledge under which a woman who interacts with a male other than her current male owner is a "slut" worthy of painful and grusome punishment.
5. Plus, He decreed that no humans could ever come back to paradise because now people would know the difference between right and wrong. And that is a Bad Thing.


The Basic Argument is it's our own fault can't be helped.
God put the Tree there for the Free Will part of it. He wanted us to worship him because we chose to not because we have to which is why I think Adam knew more than you think he did.

I believe that is called Free Will
Aha! So, you believe that Adam and Eve had free will even before they had knowledge of Good and Evil? They had free will BEFORE they had the "knowledge" to do wicked things?

I am excited about this breakthrough, because it solves a problem I have had with Christian thought for some time. See, I ask "why would a loving God allow people to do such wickedness to one another?" And the Christian tells me, "Because we must have the ability to choose between goodness and wickedness, or there is no free will." But if you are now saying that free will existed BEFORE humans were capable of choosing between goodness and wickedness, then that's great! That means that God allows us to be wicked because He WANTS us to be wicked, not just because He's forced to allow it to permit free will.

Now we all can be as wicked as we like, secure in the knowledge that it is part of God's plan.

*snip* But if you are now saying that free will existed BEFORE humans were capable of choosing between goodness and wickedness, then that's great! That means that God allows us to be wicked because He WANTS us to be wicked, not just because He's forced to allow it to permit free will.

Now we all can be as wicked as we like, secure in the knowledge that it is part of God's plan.

And the uppercut!! ;)

Aha! So, you believe that Adam and Eve had free will even before they had knowledge of Good and Evil? They had free will BEFORE they had the "knowledge" to do wicked things?

I am excited about this breakthrough, because it solves a problem I have had with Christian thought for some time. See, I ask "why would a loving God allow people to do such wickedness to one another?" And the Christian tells me, "Because we must have the ability to choose between goodness and wickedness, or there is no free will." But if you are now saying that free will existed BEFORE humans were capable of choosing between goodness and wickedness, then that's great! That means that God allows us to be wicked because He WANTS us to be wicked, not just because He's forced to allow it to permit free will.

Now we all can be as wicked as we like, secure in the knowledge that it is part of God's plan.

That is definately an extreme twist. God did allow wickedness because he wanted Free Will. He does not want us to that is ridiculous.

The Basic Argument is it's our own fault can't be helped.
God put the Tree there for the Free Will part of it. He wanted us to worship him because we chose to not because we have to which is why I think Adam knew more than you think he did.
So God put the Tree there to allow for free will, which people already had even though they did not know the difference between good and evil (yet). Then, they ate the fruit and learned about goodness and wickedness, and all of a sudden were able to understand that what they had done (eating the fruit) was wicked, so God cast them out because now they would be able to make informed decisions about right and wrong. And because these first two humans made this crucial mistake, the All-loving God decided that all humans must suffer injustice and wickedness from their fellow humans, because for some reason free will NOW requires that injustice occur, even though Adam and Eve already had it before they had knowledge of wickedness.

Makes perfect sense.

That is definately an extreme twist. God did allow wickedness because he wanted Free Will. He does not want us to that is ridiculous.
You said Adam and Eve had free will before they chose to eat the apple. If that is the case, free will does not require knowledge of wickedness, so God could very easily allow us to have free will without allowing our wickedness or injustice in the world. Thus, God CHOOSES to allow our wickedness, even though He doesn't need to.

So God put the Tree there to allow for free will, which people already had even though they did not know the difference between good and evil (yet). Then, they ate the fruit and learned about goodness and wickedness, and all of a sudden were able to understand that what they had done (eating the fruit) was wicked, so God cast them out because now they would be able to make informed decisions about right and wrong. And because these first two humans made this crucial mistake, the All-loving God decided that all humans must suffer injustice and wickedness from their fellow humans, because for some reason free will NOW requires that injustice occur, even though Adam and Eve already had it before they had knowledge of wickedness.

Makes perfect sense.

Adam and Eve being the only humans at the time did indeed ruin it for the rest of us. That is why Jesus came to redeem us. So we wouldn't have to be condemned for the Sins of our fore fathers.

So God put the Tree there to allow for free will, which people already had even though they did not know the difference between good and evil (yet). Then, they ate the fruit and learned about goodness and wickedness, and all of a sudden were able to understand that what they had done (eating the fruit) was wicked, so God cast them out because now they would be able to make informed decisions about right and wrong. And because these first two humans made this crucial mistake, the All-loving God decided that all humans must suffer injustice and wickedness from their fellow humans, because for some reason free will NOW requires that injustice occur, even though Adam and Eve already had it before they had knowledge of wickedness.

Makes perfect sense.

Ah...the joys of literal scriptural interpretation and the resulting inescapable contradictions and conundrums.

I see you're up to your usual swashbuckling and entertaining debate tactics, Bottle. ;)

I like the message in your sig, by the way.

I think I get it now!!

God is really narcissistic and egotistical. He wanted something around to worship him.

But little automata just saying "you are great! you are great!" wouldn't be good enough. He would always know that they were just "programmed" to say that.

So, he made humans with free will to love him or not. Then he gave them a Paradise to live in, and he thought, "Hey, this is great. They'll have to love me now!!"

But that was also too easy. He needed a test. So, he put the Tree there and told them not to eat from it, and then he let the serpent in to provoke them.

It's like when two people fight over a dog, and they both call to it to see whom it will go to first, right? And in this case, the serpent was holding the bacon.

Then Adam and Eve went and ate from the Tree, and God was hurt. They hadn't really done anything wrong, mind you -- since they didn't know what that was yet. (Just like the puppy going to the person with the bacon isn't "wrong.") He was just pissed that they weren't going "we love you! we love you!" according to plan.

So, like any narcissist facing rejection, he had to do it first -- and violently so.

(Of course, then you throw in the whole foreknowledge thing... and it doesn't make sense anymore. Oh well.)

Adam and Eve being the only humans at the time did indeed ruin it for the rest of us. That is why Jesus came to redeem us. So we wouldn't have to be condemned for the Sins of our fore fathers.
Ole!

Yeah, that bull just rushed right on past the target, didn't he?

Try again, mate. You just completely dodged around the points. Answer the following:

1. Did Adam and Eve have free will before eating fruit from the Tree?
2. Did Adam and Eve have knowledge of "bad" versus "good" before eating from the Tree?
2b. If no, then how could they have known they were doing something wrong by eating the fruit? and why would God be mad at them if they didn't know they were doing something wrong?
3. If your answer to #2 was "yes," and Adam and Eve were able to choose freely BEFORE they ate the fruit, why do current humans need to know wickedness in order to have free will? Why does God not allow us to exercise our free will without subjecting us to the pain of unjust evils from our fellows?
4. Why would a loving God punish billions of innocent humans for the mistake made by two humans several thousand years ago?

It's like learning to talk, but without knowing the meaning of what you are saying.

Ah...the joys of literal scriptural interpretation and the resulting inescapable contradictions and conundrums.

I see you're up to your usual swashbuckling and entertaining debate tactics, Bottle. ;)

I like to start my mornings with a nice coffee and a quality swashbuckle.


I like the message in your sig, by the way.
Thanks!

Adam and Eve being the only humans at the time did indeed ruin it for the rest of us. That is why Jesus came to redeem us. So we wouldn't have to be condemned for the Sins of our fore fathers.


Do you think the Germans of today,,(born after 1945)..are also responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews?

Im Catholic, and many times in church i find my self thinking of the bible, weither if ist true. If any of u have every seen the REd Dwarf Series there is a bit in it where in the news they find a lost page of the bible and it says all charcacters and events are fictional. Well ever read a really good fiction book or play a really good online or computer which is also like fanatasy fiction game. An get so involved in wat ever it is that u almost of even just a moment feel as thought that is real. Well wat happens if the bible was just a really good fiction book meant only to make the reader feel drawen in, if than maybe the author was some unknow writer who was damn good at it. Than somebody actually belived wat was in the book (bible) ans started a religon about it, and it grew and grew till it go to today. How do we know its just not a very good fiction book, no one i know was around wen all the things in it supposedly happen. You dont know

I've got to head to work, but I will try to check in whenever I get some down time. Just didn't want y'all to think I was ditching in the middle of a fine discussion...keep the action rolling!

1. Did Adam and Eve have free will before eating fruit from the Tree?
Yes, I believe they did because they were able to choose to eat the fruit.

2. Did Adam and Eve have knowledge of "bad" versus "good" before eating from the Tree?

Not Full knowledge but I believe they fully realized the consequences of their actions.

3. If Adam and Eve were able to choose freely BEFORE they ate the fruit, why do current humans need to know wickedness in order to have free will?

Humans are born selfish. It is not learned to take care of yourself. It is instinct to do things that you believe will lead to self-gratification.

4. Why would a loving God punish billions of innocent humans for the mistake made by two humans several thousand years ago?

All the offspring of Adam and Eve were born with the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" and so technically are not Innocent.

And the crowd chear as bottle leads the charge!

Lets say God's up there, all knowing, powerful, and why not, all loving, where does he(!) get right and wrong from? I can't trace it back any further than 'I told you so'. My pairents love me, but I don't look to them as absolut morral arbitors, if we're taking the good book at it's word, then frankly I'm torn, I can't love God, I can't even like him, I have to feel a little sympathetic to the other side, just for standing up, but one tyrant is no better than another. If the Bible is not literal, then I suppose I can still take Jesus at his word (allowing for the artistic licence of those that reorted them), it just leaves us with all the complex problems bottle & others are putting forward.

All the offspring of Adam and Eve were born with the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" and so technically are not Innocent.

Then why did Jesus die?

Yes, I believe they did because they were able to choose to eat the fruit.

To continue Bottle's argument:

Usually, when people ask, "Why does there have to be evil (wickedness) in the world?" the standard Christian answer is "because without it, there could be no such thing as free will."

Yet the Bible explains that from the Tree humans received "knowledge of good and evil."

If both of these statements are true, then there was no such thing as free will prior to the eating of the fruit. But if there was no such thing as free will, how could God punish Adam and Eve for their action?

Now, you claim that there was free will. If you want to maintain logical consistency, you must reject at least one of the above claims. So which is it? Do you reject the notion that the Tree provided knowledge of good and evil -- in direct contradiction to the text on which you are basing your entire argument? Or, do you reject the notion that free will requires that there be wickedness in the world?

Not Full knowledge but I believe they fully realized the consequences of their actions.

How could they "fully realize" consequences (e.g. ejection from Paradise and ceaseless toil for the entire human race, or pain in childbirth) which God did not explain until after their transgression?

Then why did Jesus die?
Really Noogie, of all the silly questions! Isnt the answer obvious? Without Jesus dying, there would be no Easter. No Easter means no Easter eggs. No Easter eggs would mean a serious dip in the mid-early year profits of the Warehouse. How is Mr Tindall supposed to cope then, answer me that....


Besides chocolate is fun! :cool:

Are you from New Zealand?

This is redundant. God has already proven His existence.

one atheist tried to use science to prove God didnt exist and do you know what hapened? he was proven wrong and he is now a Gospel Preacher.
God has existed before time and always will.

Then why did Jesus die?

So we could get back to the original state. Jesus took all sins Past, Present and Future on Himself. An Infinite Sacrifice for and for a sin against and Infinite God.

So we could get back to the original state. Jesus took all sins Past, Present and Future on Himself. An Infinite Sacrifice for and for a sin against and Infinite God.

Then why do women still feel pain at childbirth? Why cant we go camping in the garden of eden on the weekends?

Really Noogie, of all the silly questions! Isnt the answer obvious? Without Jesus dying, there would be no Easter. No Easter means no Easter eggs. No Easter eggs would mean a serious dip in the mid-early year profits of the Warehouse. How is Mr Tindall supposed to cope then, answer me that....


Besides chocolate is fun! :cool:

Ah, but "Eostre" was a pagan goddess of Spring! So we would still have her, and her eggs and bunnies... and without all that depressing crucifiction and death!!

To continue Bottle's argument:

Usually, when people ask, "Why does there have to be evil (wickedness) in the world?" the standard Christian answer is "because without it, there could be no such thing as free will."

Yet the Bible explains that from the Tree humans received "knowledge of good and evil."

If both of these statements are true, then there was no such thing as free will prior to the eating of the fruit. But if there was no such thing as free will, how could God punish Adam and Eve for their action?

Now, you claim that there was free will. If you want to maintain logical consistency, you must reject at least one of the above claims. So which is it? Do you reject the notion that the Tree provided knowledge of good and evil -- in direct contradiction to the text on which you are basing your entire argument? Or, do you reject the notion that free will requires that there be wickedness in the world?

I don't think I need to reject either becuase if they thought they would die from eating of the tree. They should not have done it in the first place you don't need the Knowledge of good and evil to realize ceasing to exist is bad.



How could they "fully realize" consequences (e.g. ejection from Paradise and ceaseless toil for the entire human race, or pain in childbirth) which God did not explain until after their transgression?

I think that the consequence of Instant Death they thought they were getting was plenty enough to dissuade them.

I as well have to go to work but I will be back later today.

I think that the consequence of Instant Death they thought they were getting was plenty enough to dissuade them.

Okay, so first of all, you admit that God lied to them. Moreover, they were right to call his bluff.

But that's beside the point. The point is, whether they thought there might be consequences is irrelevant to the question of whether they knew it would be wrong.

Tell me, do you think a dog has free will?

Usually, when people ask, "Why does there have to be evil (wickedness) in the world?" the standard Christian answer is "because without it, there could be no such thing as free will."

Yet the Bible explains that from the Tree humans received "knowledge of good and evil."

If both of these statements are true, then there was no such thing as free will prior to the eating of the fruit. But if there was no such thing as free will, how could God punish Adam and Eve for their action?

Now, you claim that there was free will. If you want to maintain logical consistency, you must reject at least one of the above claims. So which is it? Do you reject the notion that the Tree provided knowledge of good and evil -- in direct contradiction to the text on which you are basing your entire argument? Or, do you reject the notion that free will requires that there be wickedness in the world?


I'm not sure I understand your arguement. Why does the tree giving knowledge of good and evil mean free will did not exist?