NationStates Jolt Archive

By the way I am no longer participating in this thread. I think the idea was fundamentally flawed, and thus the thread pointless. Thank you to all the people who participated civilly.

Convertion cant be forced, it has to be a personal choice:)

I'll give you $10 if you join my religion.

Go on. Convert me. No catch, just post a convincing argument for why I should believe in your religion. I don't want any anti-religious debate here, or debate on whether it's right to convert people, I just want religious types to try to convince me.

I'm not going to argue against you or try to convince you that you're wrong, but if you need an explanation of why your argument is not convincing, I will post it.

Personally I think trying to convert others to one's faith is folly. But I can give you a reason why religion can help.

My faith helped me when I was sick and needed surgery, it gave me something to believe in, that there was something (or someone) watching over me.

I don't put all my energy into my faith, I know there are things that could be changed for the better, and I know it doesn't work for everybody. But it works for me.

Covert to Pastafarianism. In Heaven, there's a Stripper Factory and a Beer Volcano.

Covert to Pastafarianism. In Heaven, there's a Stripper Factory and a Beer Volcano.

......Awsome!

I don't think people understand. All I want people to do is tell me, in their most convincing way that their religion is the truth. I won't pretend to believe it, but I will judge any attempts fairly, and if they sound like they are probably true, I will treat them as such.

Making me want it to be true is not the same, by the way.

$RELIGION is true because $BOOK/PERSON/TEXT says so.

That's basically what you're gonna get.

I don't think people understand. All I want people to do is tell me, in their most convincing way that their religion is the truth. I won't pretend to believe it, but I will judge any attempts fairly, and if they sound like they are probably true, I will treat them as such.

Making me want it to be true is not the same, by the way.

Ok. The universe works just fine without a God. Gods would most likely create detectable physical anomalies (miracles) which would result in someone winning the $1,000,000 paranormal prize. No one has yet.

Have you converted yet?

I don't think people understand. All I want people to do is tell me, in their most convincing way that their religion is the truth. I won't pretend to believe it, but I will judge any attempts fairly, and if they sound like they are probably true, I will treat them as such.

Making me want it to be true is not the same, by the way.

We understand. It's an self-indulgent thread that is just begging for flames. Because we don't take you seriously enough to care whether or not you think our religion is "the truth", we are cracking jokes instead.

$RELIGION is true because $BOOK/PERSON/TEXT says so.

That's basically what you're gonna get.

In a nutshell...yeah...

Any decent person would give you some valid reasons...but if your seeking active conversion, this is more or less what your gonna get.

You been visited by any Jehova's Witnesses yet?

Originally posted by Uber Awesome
. . . but if you need an explanation of why your argument is not convincing, I will post it.
In that statement, you have already shown your hand. The question is, rather, what kind of evidence will you accept?

Essentially, if you are set against something, you are not going to believe it, regardless of whether or not it is compelling.

Plus, I am not out to convert you. You don't know me, and you have no reason to think that there is any merit in what I say. In addition, you cannot see whether or not I am any different from anyone else.

Hope you see what you are looking for. I am sure you will.

You been visited by any Jehova's Witnesses yet?

I got them to stop coming to me. You have no idea how spooked they can get by some leather attire and a naked boyfriend. :D

Covert to Pastafarianism. In Heaven, there's a Stripper Factory and a Beer Volcano.

Where do I sign up?

We understand. It's an self-indulgent thread that is just begging for flames. Because we don't take you seriously enough to care whether or not you think our religion is "the truth", we are cracking jokes instead.

You can crack jokes and call me self-indulgent all you like. I'm just making it as easy as possible for the religious to convert me. They don't seem to be very good at it. I understand that not everyone will take the thread seriously. When does that ever happen in a thread. As for flames, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not trying to flamebait. Quite the opposite, I'm trying to be as friendly and inoffensive as possible so that people don't post defensively. If anyone flames I will ignore them.

You can crack jokes and call me self-indulgent all you like. I'm just making it as easy as possible for the religious to convert me. They don't seem to be very good at it. I understand that not everyone will take the thread seriously. When does that ever happen in a thread. As for flames, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not trying to flamebait. Quite the opposite, I'm trying to be as friendly and inoffensive as possible so that people don't post defensively. If anyone flames I will ignore them.

So are you ignoring my arguments above because you consider them flames, or did I fail to convert you?

I got them to stop coming to me. You have no idea how spooked they can get by some leather attire and a naked boyfriend. :D

Yeah...That'll do it.

Personally, I'm a little more subtle.

JW: Have you found Jesus?
Me: Wait a second, let me turn off my RAGING ANTICHRIST DEATH METAL, and I'll help you look for him.

Goddistan']In that statement, you have already shown your hand. The question is, rather, what kind of evidence will you accept?

Essentially, if you are set against something, you are not going to believe it, regardless of whether or not it is compelling.

I just said that for those posts (not all posts) that are not convincing, I will be kind enough to explain why.

I'm not set against anything. I will treat posts fairly. I am strictly against rejecting reality, so if I am wrong about it, I very much want to change my view of it.

So are you ignoring my arguments above because you consider them flames, or did I fail to convert you?

You seemed to be arguing for atheism, which I can't convert to because I am already atheist.

You seemed to be arguing for atheism, which I can't convert to because I am already atheist.

Hmm...that's unfortunate.
Implicit or Explicit?
Secular Humanist, Amoralist, or Other?

Hmm...that's unfortunate.
Implicit or Explicit?
Secular Humanist, Amoralist, or Other?

I don't know what you mean when you say "implicit or explicit" and I am undecided on ethical systems.

Convert is a word that is not often used in the Baha'i Faith, but there is a process of conversation that one goes through as s/he begins to understand what the teachings of Baha'u'llah really are and what they mean to humanity.
Let me ask you this: Which of these principles of the Baha'i Faith don't you agree with-- except for the one about religion? I won't list all of them just a few, and remember that Baha'u'llah was born in 1817.

The oneness of all humans.
The equality of women and men
The elimination of prejudice of all kinds: racial, religious, ethnic, wealth--to name a few.
The elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty.
The essential oness of all revealed religions.

There are many more.
I don't think I can "convert" you with one or even several meeting at nationstates General. But if you spend some time reading what the Bahai' Faith has to say I think you will be impressed andmay even want to find out more.

Tag. I am here to enjoy this contest, not participate.

I don't know what you mean when you say "implicit or explicit" and I am undecided on ethical systems.

Implicit is if God appeared in front of you (or similar large degree of evidence) you'd believe, but otherwise you reject the concept.

Explicit is refusing to believe period.

Edit: Oh yeah and as to ethical systems: does that mean I can convert you to Amoralism?

You should convert if you seek an alternate view of how the world works. You can indeed be like me and believe in both God and evolution, in both God and the Big Bang. You can convert and be open-minded and still live like you normally would, except that you believe in a little extra.


Other than that, really stupid OP. Converting someone is a matter of the convertee's choice, not him challenging someone to convert him. We already know your not going to convert no matter what argument we give you in favor of conversion anyway, logical or not.

In any case, it's illogical to say that there isn't a God. Why? Because there's no proof that he exists or not. Therefore if you go either way, your not wrong, but you don't know if your right until your dead.

Convert is a word that is not often used in the Baha'i Faith, but there is a process of conversation that one goes through as s/he begins to understand what the teachings of Baha'u'llah really are and what they mean to humanity.
Let me ask you this: Which of these principles of the Baha'i Faith don't you agree with-- except for the one about religion? I won't list all of them just a few, and remember that Baha'u'llah was born in 1817.

The oneness of all humans.
I'm not sure what you mean here
The equality of women and men
I'm a fan of equal rights
The elimination of prejudice of all kinds: racial, religious, ethnic, wealth--to name a few.
I think all people should be judged on an individual basis
The elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty.
I don't think anyone should go hungry, certainly. I don't know what you count as extremes, though.
The essential oness of all revealed religions.
Sorry, don't understand this

There are many more.
I don't think I can "convert" you with one or even several meeting at nationstates General. But if you spend some time reading what the Bahai' Faith has to say I think you will be impressed andmay even want to find out more.

Religious systems often do say things I like the sound of. It's the belief in things like the supernatural (e.g. God) that I can't reconcile with the reality I perceive.

Religious systems often do say things I like the sound of. It's the belief in things like the supernatural (e.g. God) that I can't reconcile with the reality I perceive.

Then you don't need a religion, man. You don't need to believe in an otherworldly force in order to live a moral life. So long as you're on a path you believe in, you can't do wrong.

You should convert if you seek an alternate view of how the world works. You can indeed be like me and believe in both God and evolution, in both God and the Big Bang. You can convert and be open-minded and still live like you normally would, except that you believe in a little extra.


Other than that, really stupid OP. Converting someone is a matter of the convertee's choice, not him challenging someone to convert him. We already know your not going to convert no matter what argument we give you in favor of conversion anyway, logical or not.

In any case, it's illogical to say that there isn't a God. Why? Because there's no proof that he exists or not. Therefore if you go either way, your not wrong, but you don't know if your right until your dead.

No, no, I won't refuse to convert. I want to live in the universe I believe in. I don't like it. I only believe it because it seems logical to me.

As for saying there isn't a God, I'm simply believing in what seems logically most likely. In terms of tangible proof, that is quite impossible, especially since no-one agrees on what "God" is, but within one person's view, God has a clearer definition.

I'll give you $10 if you join my religion.


Sold!!





Wait, have I just signed up for the 'everyone felate Sdaeriji' religion?


This could get ugly :eek:

Religious systems often do say things I like the sound of. It's the belief in things like the supernatural (e.g. God) that I can't reconcile with the reality I perceive.

The principles pretty much speak for themselves, so I won't try to explain them any futher expect to say that don't read too much into them. The point about the oneness of religion is just that Baha'u'llah says that all religions have been revealed by God through his Messengers, and that they all teach the same basic spiritual truths. The religions have been changed over time by the insertion of human flaws into the teachings of the Messengers.

Without disparaging others, make a heartfelt case for your religion and your specific place in it. What is the primary message of your religion? What makes it unique in suiting you? Without using blanket statements about "sins" and "morals" what are the primary differences in your religion/sect/denomination and others? What, in your opinion, is a facet of your religion/etc. that is misunderstood or not given enough emphasis by others and even those who share your beliefs?

Originally posted by Uber Awesome
I just said that for those posts (not all posts) that are not convincing, I will be kind enough to explain why.

I'm not set against anything. I will treat posts fairly. I am strictly against rejecting reality, so if I am wrong about it, I very much want to change my view of it.

Fair's fair. I will bite at least, because I believe you.

Now, I would still appreciate an answer to the "What kind of evidence will you accept?" question. If I am to help you see what I see, I must know at least some of how you think. This isn't a new concept, as most of the witnessing in the New Testament was done this way (the approach was one that started with a common link: see Acts 8 and 17 for some basic examples of that). I would never approach you with a rehearsed speech or a handy little tract, as I think those things are worthwhile only for people with a very specific set of presuppositions.

So, what kind of evidence would you accept? Empirical only? I wouldn't think so, but you never know. Philosophical? Historical?

If your answer would be something like, "Ultimately, none," it would negate spending the time to tell you something that you are already convinced is wrong. That was the reasoning for my first post. I apologize if it seemed presumptuous. It is merely that I have seen threads on here before with this exact title and that was what it was.

So, if you would be so kind as to answer my question and I will at least give you an idea of why I think what I think.

*sits with bowl of popcorn to watch the inevitable flamewar*

Then you don't need a religion, man. You don't need to believe in an otherworldly force in order to live a moral life. So long as you're on a path you believe in, you can't do wrong.

I hope so.

Implicit is if God appeared in front of you (or similar large degree of evidence) you'd believe, but otherwise you reject the concept.

Explicit is refusing to believe period.

Well, I'd believe in a being capable of appearing in front of me and claiming to be God. I would certainly consider that it might be God.

Edit: Oh yeah and as to ethical systems: does that mean I can convert you to Amoralism?
I'm willing to listen (well, read).

Goddistan']So, what kind of evidence would you accept? Empirical only? I wouldn't think so, but you never know. Philosophical? Historical?

It's not so much a case of evidence, although, if you have witnessed something I have been unfortunate enough not to, I would certainly appreciate being able to witness it myself.

I suppose what I would need is to be convinced that the truth of your religion is the correct conclusion when analysing the world around me.

While I already have my own ideas of what conclusion one should reach and why, it does not mean that I will stick to it no matter what.

Originally posted by Uber Awesome
Well, I'd believe in a being capable of appearing in front of me and claiming to be God. I would certainly consider that it might be God.

Tell me that's not all.

I have to admit, I am still a little skeptical of your intent here, just looking at what you posted on the "Wisdom from Little People" or some such titled thread. However, since you are willing to listen, I am willing to assume the most innocent intent.

I hope so.


Well, I'd believe in a being capable of appearing in front of me and claiming to be God. I would certainly consider that it might be God.


I'm willing to listen (well, read).

Ok, let's get started: the problem with any moral code is that in the end it cannot be logically supported. Nothing can be shown to be of value unless one already has some concept of objective value already implanted. Looking at morality from a completely neutral framework it is impossible to weigh any given morality against any other. Any attempt at logical proof of morality is based on linquistic assumptions similar to those that give us the word burgled. Something can logically be good for some purpose, IE facilitate it, and that can be empirically derived. The mistake people make is thinking that because something can be good for a specific thing, that means its possible for an action to be good in general. The fact is this is just a mistake based on the similarity of the phrases rather than anything logical. So morality is unsupportable and thus should not be followed. I would recommend instead following biological urges, they usually add up to about the same thing.

The Almighty Crab doesn't advocate actively seeking people to convert. Personally we find it annoying when people try pushing their religion on us, so we don't seek to push it on others.

Without disparaging others, make a heartfelt case for your religion and your specific place in it. What is the primary message of your religion? What makes it unique in suiting you? Without using blanket statements about "sins" and "morals" what are the primary differences in your religion/sect/denomination and others? What, in your opinion, is a facet of your religion/etc. that is misunderstood or not given enough emphasis by others and even those who share your beliefs?

The following explains very well a basic principle of the baha'i Faith--the oneness of the Messengers of God. Baha'u'llah, who Bahai's believe is the newest Messenger from God has come as the "Return of Christ, Moses, Muhammed and all the previous Messengers of Gos. He is the Promised One of all time who has come to unite all of humanity and end war.

"Amongst the Prophets some stand out with special pre-eminence.
Every few centuries a great Divine Revealer -- a
Krishna, a Zoroaster, a Moses, a Jesus, a Muhammad -- appears
in the East, like a spiritual Sun, to illumine the darkened
minds of men and awaken their dormant souls. Whatever our
views as to the relative greatness of these religion-founders
we must admit that They have been the most potent factors in
the education of mankind. With one accord these Prophets
declare that the words They utter are not from "Themselves,
but are a Revelation through Them, a Divine message of which
They are the bearers. Their recorded utterances abound, too,
in hints and promises of a great world teacher Who will appear
"in the fullness of time" to carry on Their work and bring
it to fruition, One Who will establish a reign of peace and
justice upon earth, and bring into one family all races, religions,
nations, and tribes, that "there may be one fold and
one shepherd" and that all may know and love God "from the
least even unto the greatest."
Surely the advent of this "Educator of Mankind," in the latter
days, when He appears, must be the greatest event in
human history. And the Bahá'í Movement is proclaiming to the
world the glad tidings that this Educator has in fact appeared,
that His Revelation has been delivered and recorded and may
be studied by every earnest seeker, that the "Day of the Lord"
has already dawned and the "Sun or Righteousness" arisen. As
yet only a few on the mountaintops have caught sight of the
Glorious Orb, but already its rays are illumining heaven and
earth, and erelong it will rise above the mountains and shine
with full strength on the plains and valleys too, giving life and
guidance to all."

(Dr. J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 1)

Goddistan']Tell me that's not all.

I have to admit, I am still a little skeptical of your intent here, just looking at what you posted on the "Wisdom from Little People" or some such titled thread. However, since you are willing to listen, I am willing to assume the most innocent intent.

I won't deny that I often make harsh posts. This is partly because I sound more extreme than I mean to. In posting this thread however, I am letting my guard down - I making the assumption that my judgements have been too harsh and that I should listen, in case I was wrong. I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of being unable to let go of an incorrect opinion.

Answer to the question? I just have to honestly know something about what you think. Since I don't know your ethnicity, religious inclinations (or lack thereof), age, beliefs on the supernatural, etc., I cannot present you with an adequate reason.

Mind you I hate on-the-spot, unconnected evangelism/converting/whatever you want to call it.

<snip>

What you say sounds reasonable, however, is it not true that in a materialistic universe, one is following biological urges whether following an ethical code or not? That the desire to follow a code is, itself a biological urge?

Goddistan']Answer to the question? I just have to honestly know something about what you think. Since I don't know your ethnicity, religious inclinations (or lack thereof), age, beliefs on the supernatural, etc., I cannot present you with an adequate reason.
Well, I don't see what race or age matter, but as for the other things, my current theory is that I live in a godless universe. I believe that everything can be described as natural, and thus, that there is no supernatural. I suppose I would be called a materialist, or more vaguely, monist. I believe that everything is made up of the same stuff.

Mind you I hate on-the-spot, unconnected evangelism/converting/whatever you want to call it.[/QUOTE]

Okay, that's fine.

We shall start with a place were we both agree. This universe seems to have some sort of order (I would say that the fact that we even have scientific law attests to this.). Would you agree?

I'm sure you have a thought as to where you think this is going, but just wait.

Goddistan']Okay, that's fine.

We shall start with a place were we both agree. This universe seems to have some sort of order (I would say that the fact that we even have scientific law attests to this.). Would you agree?
I agree.

Okay, now, would you say it came from the Big Bang?

For the record, that other argument can be valid. It is just usually taken too far.

What you say sounds reasonable, however, is it not true that in a materialistic universe, one is following biological urges whether following an ethical code or not? That the desire to follow a code is, itself a biological urge?



Hmm...what I meant was more biological urges as opposed to memetic ones. People don't have a biological urge to attach themselves to memes, rather memes use existing biological urges to aid their own reproduction.

Goddistan']Okay, now, would you say it came from the Big Bang?

I would say that the Big Bang is the best theory we currently have, as far as I know.

Okay, we don't agree, but I will stay with you to see how far that can be taken.

From where did the Big Bang come?

"I believe that everything can be described as natural, and thus, that there is no supernatural. I suppose I would be called a materialist, or more vaguely, monist. I believe that everything is made up of the same stuff."

Really... I would very much like to see this "smallest particle", because in all honesty, that would be a very major scientific and philosophical discovery. Think about it... you can always divide a space into smaller spaces, but that doesnt make any sense does it? Eventually things would have to stop wouldnt they? and think about the cosmos, can you ever get to the edge? and if you can, whats beyond it? Nothing is the most likely answer, but then you have to think about what nothing is (or isnt) and then things just start to fall apart... so what im trying to say is not to convert you to a specific religion, but maybe you shouldnt have so much faith in what you've heard about science...

Finally think about this... in a scientific (linear) world, at some point something came from nothing, which is very un-scientific right? "Nothing" makes "everything" without a reason since stimulus cannot exist when nothing exists right? Anyway, just a note; it was Goethe that said 'At some point, something came from nothing."

Hmm...what I meant was more biological urges as opposed to memetic ones. People don't have a biological urge to attach themselves to memes, rather memes use existing biological urges to aid their own reproduction.

Perhaps more pertinent is that if there is no "right" or "wrong", amorality cannot be "right", and morality cannot be "wrong".

Goddistan']Okay, we don't agree, but I will stay with you to see how far that can be taken.

From where did the Big Bang come?

I'll assume you mean "what was the cause for that event?" Well, the cause for the outward motion of mass/energy from the initial point would probably be described as either pressure or dark energy by current theory, not sure on the finer points, but what's important is that it was the logical result of the initial state of the universe. As for how it "got into" that state, I would say that the question is meaningless, as the initial state was the start of time. Just as some claim that God was not created, he simply existed from the start, I would say the same for the universe (especially since space-time is part of the universe).

While I find this interesting. I am of the mind that were I to attempt to push a "full-fledged" Christian philosophy on you, it would do two things:
1) Alienate you
2) Alienate others

As most people are of a pre-concept of Christianity of all denominations, I must say that I have absolutely no ability to bring to bear my beliefs without meeting these biases. Even though you have an open mind, you still have said biases.

Furthermore, age and race are pertinent questions. As many races have a disdain for the way Jesus died (the Japanese, for one), and age because there are different parts of the Bible that affect different age categories.

However, if you can assure me that you will not, first, follow any pre-conceptual biases; then I will attempt to explain why I believe what and as I do.

Edit: Spelling changes. I'm getting to that tired point in the night.

Originally posted by Uber Awesome
I'll assume you mean "what was the cause for that event?"
I actually meant both from where it came and of what it was comprised. It is no matter, though. You answered both, so there is nothing left wanting.

Well, the cause for the outward motion of mass/energy from the initial point would probably be described as either pressure or dark energy by current theory, not sure on the finer points, but what's important is that it was the logical result of the initial state of the universe.
It is [B]a[\B] logical result, yes. That theory is, of course, based on the presupposition that there was no Creator, but we will ignore that for now.

As for how it "got into" that state, I would say that the question is meaningless, as the initial state was the start of time.
Time having a beginning is speculatory, and possibly self-refuting. We gauge things with beginnings and ends by the ways they exist within the realms of time. Thus, for time to have a beginning, time would have had to exist within time, or basically, time would have had to create itself. Regardless of what you think of a Creator, this is not a thought based on naturalism.

Mind you, as I speak, I also listen. I have enjoyed what you have said up to now.

Just as some claim that God was not created, he simply existed from the start, I would say the same for the universe (especially since space-time is part of the universe).

However, if you can assure me that you will not, first, follow any pre-conceptual biases; then I will attempt to explain why I believe what and as I do.

I'll do my best. I know that I can't judge people by stereotpyes. Similarly, it would be wrong to judge me by an age/race stereotype.

Goddistan']Time having a beginning is speculatory, and possibly self-refuting. We gauge things with beginnings and ends by the ways they exist within the realms of time. Thus, for time to have a beginning, time would have had to exist within time, or basically, time would have had to create itself. Regardless of what you think of a Creator, this is not a thought based on naturalism.

I don't mean "beginning" as an event in time. Having an event without a cause is illogical, I agree. All I mean is that time is not something that extends infinitely backwards. We needn't assume that it does simply because we have the numbers to describe such behaviour.

Have you ever considered LaVeyan Satanism? It believe that the only god is the Self. Pretty cool. :cool:

OK. I'm too tired to continue. I will check on this thread tomorrow probably.

I'm seeing this thread much the same way I would see someone that walks onto a used car lot, finds a salesperson and says "sell me a car!"

At that point, it would be reasonable for the salesperson to ask "What are you looking for in a car?"

That is my question too: what are you looking for in a religion?

Perhaps more pertinent is that if there is no "right" or "wrong", amorality cannot be "right", and morality cannot be "wrong".


True, but amorality can be "correct" and morality "incorrect".

As for the Big Bang stuff, the correct answer (according to String Theory, anyway) is two branes colliding. And while time could be bowl shaped a la Stephan Hawking, causation can go back however far you feel like. There doesn't have to be a beginning, so there doesn't have to be a hole where someone can fit their personal god-of-the-gaps.

Have you ever considered LaVeyan Satanism? It believe that the only god is the Self. Pretty cool. :cool:

That the one with The Satanic Bible, or is that a different one?

You should think about joining Jokeriikmagoshiboshipishiposhism.

We have cookies.

I am tired as well. It is only midnight here, but I have to work tomorrow.

Hopefully, I will be able to steal away to be on here. It is typically rare for me to get much freetime, but I would like to continue what I can.

Any thought to doing this off the forum? With all the banter coming from a hundred different posters (especially on a topic like this), it would be too time consuming and confusing. I have had this experience before and it got to the point of being draining.

E-mail? Instant Message service? Something else, perhaps?

Almost forgot.

Originally posted by Vegas-Rex
As for the Big Bang stuff, the correct answer (according to String Theory, anyway) is two branes colliding. And while time could be bowl shaped a la Stephan Hawking, causation can go back however far you feel like. There doesn't have to be a beginning, so there doesn't have to be a hole where someone can fit their personal god-of-the-gaps.
That is a reasonable theory, but just as unprovable and just as "outside the realm of scientific study" as a theory on a Creator. Neither can be proven.

One question, and this is an honest one. Is there any possible evidence that would lead one to believe that these "could" have happened apart from the idea that it creates the ability to avoid that "god-of-the-apes?"

Fair enough, I conclude.

Then, to begin.

Christianity is generally considered to be the "good" religion. A religion of people who love each other and love God. As this being the two main points of Christianity, as Jesus preached that the two greatest commandments were to:
1) Love God, thy Father, and put no one before Him.
2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Those two altruistic thoughts in themselves deem Christianity as a "perfect" religion. You are to love yourself, your neighbor, and God all. It's a pseudo-Communism. However, as we all know, Commuism won't work because of inherent greed. Similarly, Christianity has its own nemisis called "sin nature". (While I'll attempt to not "blanket" everything with sin, it is important to understand that the concept of sin is important to Christianity.) Christianity is all summed up in a book, called the Bible. And, in the Bible, there is a protagonist, an antagonist, and a plot. The protagonists are, of course, God, Jesus, all of those prophets, the apostles, and so forth. The antagonists are Lucifer, his daemons, and those who were against God's people. The plot is how sin and altruism wage war.

I know that really simplifies the Bible, however, that's about all it is. The largest difference is the belief in this book as a guide to salvation, that the book's authour is God Himself, and thus the original Word is perfect. Regardless of humanity's twists on the Book to its present form, the original is perfect. Therefore, for one to believe the Bible most correctly, one must study the most original form. Futhermore, one must believe all parts of the Bible. To not is to be like a broken bottle or cup. You fill it up, and it leaks. Why? Because it is not whole. The possible argument that there are "apparent contradictions" in the Bible is, of course, understandable. However, 90% of them are to human error and translation, the other 10% are based on our understanding of the world and the understanding of the world 2000 years ago. Two completely different societies, and thus some of it may seem alien to us--whereas the statements made sense back then. That is not to say it is "out-dated," merely that a historic understanding of the era is necessary.

Now, with that bit of background, my primary reason for belief is really simple. In order to understand salvation, one must understand sin. To understand sin, one must understand law. To understand Biblical law is no harder to understand than civil law. If you murder a man, you go to jail in civil law. If you murder in the Biblical law, you have sinned. "The wages of sin is death". That is a simple concept. Therefore, you die. However, the largest difference between civil law and Biblical law is in the variety of punishments. Civil law bases everything on severity and precedence. The Bible is much simpler. If you sin, you die. It seems harsh, yes, but it is not. For we have been given something that no one in the civil world can get. That is salvation. By merely professing and truly believing in God and Jesus, as per Romans 10:9 Confess with thy mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in thy heart that He died for you sin, and thou shalt be saved. That is, to say, that by merely atoning with God, showing you accept His benevolence and love, and you are saved with permanence. As it is a "seed of salvation which is planted in your soul". It cannot be removed by any means. Literally, you could renounce God and all He stands for, and you would still be saved. However, you must believe when you are first saying the words... truly believe.

So, it seems self-serving to say "I believe in God because I do not want to go to hell," but the altruistic values of Christianity are still important as well. God is a god of justice and love. Furthermore, the Bible says to be "Christ-like". So... in order to strive and follow the Word, one must be altruistic and self-less. The order of self-lessness is to get others saved under God, as well. In that, I am spreading what has been given to me to others. Good works aren't a necessity, but I would prefer to save my friends from damnation than to love them in life, and weep at the end when they die.

The conclusion is rather simple to me. I was selfish when I became saved, and a self-less friend was the one who brought God to me. I saw that selfishness was pointless and, too, became self-less... in that I have brought God to many friends who, otherwise, might not have truly known Him. And thus I go out on a limb to bring to you the same concept. I expect that you have morality, I expect that you are what the world calls a "good" person. But I also expect that you want something more than what you have, and I offer it. Everyone is selfish, and that is no sin. To be selfish is to love yourself, which the Bible says to do. And to let yourself be damned is to not be selfish nor self-less, it is to be stupid. To let others be damned is to be foolish. To love them and spread what you have learned, that is to be self-less and to follow God's commandments.

So... barring all of these "logical" and "historical" arguments, barring denominative beliefs, and barring all stereotypes save that which I expect out of someone looking to be converted... that is my view on religion. If you accept or decline there, then that is a gateway to finding the history, the reasoning, and the denominative points of view of I have. If you accept, then I can explain those points. If you decline, then you are of no mind to hear more.

Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein

We may think of science as one wing and religion as the other; a bird needs two wings for flight, one alone would be useless. Any religion that contradicts science or that is opposed to it, is only ignorance -- for ignorance is the opposite of knowledge.

Religion which consists only of rites and ceremonies of prejudice is not the truth. Let us earnestly endeavour to be the means of uniting religion and science.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 130)

Convert me.

No. Your heart's not in it.

No. Your heart's not in it.

Oh, you wacky, non-proselytising Muslims...

Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein

We may think of science as one wing and religion as the other; a bird needs two wings for flight, one alone would be useless. Any religion that contradicts science or that is opposed to it, is only ignorance -- for ignorance is the opposite of knowledge.

Religion which consists only of rites and ceremonies of prejudice is not the truth. Let us earnestly endeavour to be the means of uniting religion and science.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 130)

I completely agree, if a religion cannot agree with science, then one or the other must be wrong. However, it is important to note that all creations are mere theory and none can be tested. As science is defined as

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE (Webster Online)

Therefore, it must be obtainable and testable. Thus all creations are theories and not science. Mere... speculation.

I'll try my hand in this.

You should try atheism. There is no religion that I know of that has demonstrated that it holds the truth. Many religions claim all sorts of fablish things like Adam and Eve and talking snakes and such but after the religion has told the huge mega big fish it get's backed up with nothing at all. People make up stuff all the time. It is most likely what other religions claim is also made up.

Use you eyes, ears, toungue, nose, sense of touch, and your brian to tell you what is real not some supposed holy book.

A mind is a terable thing to waste.

How did I do?

I just noticed The Arbites post above. I like it but I don't believe it. For me to ever believe again someone would have to explain how the so called messianic prophecies are legitamate. To me those prophecies are so iligiamate as to render the gospels a fabrication.

Any ways thanks for post The Arbites

As tempting as it is to evangelise my ideas, they only make sense to me due to the thought process I personally engaged in to arrive at the conclusions I did. My suggestion to you is to genuinely take every possible angle you can into account before you make up your mind about anything on this.

Let's just say disregarding both your and your society's preconceived notions of God can result in interesting insights.

Besides, since my philosophies aren't technically religion, there's nothing to convert you to at the minute. Systemism provides an explanation; not a course of action or an identity group.

It would take a miracle to convert me. I'll probably never understand why you believe what you do but whilst I'm I'll respect your views and only ridicule and mock you from the privacy of my skull. Heaven knows, I like to feel superior in that respect. But so help me.. the next athiest to claim that science and logic disprove the existance of God I'll slap them! Well I won't actually.. maybe I'll sneak up on them in the street one day and tread on their heel. If it's raining they'll get a wet sock.. maybe they'll step on a pebble or something and they'll come to realise that any being, real or otherwise, that is capable of creating all is above your mortal laws of science and logic! In all honesty, there's a 50/50 chance, right? I'll continue to stradle my fence.

It would take a miracle to convert me. I'll probably never understand why you believe what you do but whilst I'm I'll respect your views and only ridicule and mock you from the privacy of my skull. Heaven knows, I like to feel superior in that respect. But so help me.. the next athiest to claim that science and logic disprove the existance of God I'll slap them! Well I won't actually.. maybe I'll sneak up on them in the street one day and tread on their heel. If it's raining they'll get a wet sock.. maybe they'll step on a pebble or something and they'll come to realise that any being, real or otherwise, that is capable of creating all is above your mortal laws of science and logic! In all honesty, there's a 50/50 chance, right? I'll continue to stradle my fence.
50/50? Only if you assume that either God doesn't exist or any given particular interpretation exists.

Besides, what's the value of just sitting on the fence? I reckon the best strategy is always, and has always been, to study the fence from both angles and to try to find gaps. If it turns out there's a gaping big hole somewhere in it that allows people to easily move from one side to the other, you can then question the wisdom of even segregating yourselves into sides at all and thus prove the unity of the two sides of the fence. That way, everyone wins. Well, okay, you win; the two sides feel a bit stupid. But ultimately, everyone benefits in the long run.

50/50? Only if you assume that either God doesn't exist or any given particular interpretation exists.

Besides, what's the value of just sitting on the fence? I reckon the best strategy is always, and has always been, to study the fence from both angles and to try to find gaps. If it turns out there's a gaping big hole somewhere in it that allows people to easily move from one side to the other, you can then question the wisdom of even segregating yourselves into sides at all and thus prove the unity of the two sides of the fence. That way, everyone wins. Well, okay, you win; the two sides feel a bit stupid. But ultimately, everyone benefits in the long run.
I like my fence. Unlike some fences my crotch is safe here.

I completely agree, if a religion cannot agree with science, then one or the other must be wrong. However, it is important to note that all creations are mere theory and none can be tested. As science is defined as

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE (Webster Online)

Therefore, it must be obtainable and testable. Thus all creations are theories and not science. Mere... speculation.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that life, art, music are just theory? Please explain. Can anyone else help out here.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that life, art, music are just theory? Please explain. Can anyone else help out here.
Stop deleting the post when I'm trying to respond. You're messing with my mind and I don't like it. As for you question, I think the poster guy missed out the word "stories". All creation stories are mere speculation. That's what he meant I think.

Stop deleting the post when I'm trying to respond. You're messing with my mind and I don't like it. As for you question, I think the poster guy missed out the word "stories". All creation stories are mere speculation. That's what he meant I think.

Sorry about that it was totally unintentional. The creation stories were not meant to be scienctific fact. They were meant to give the limited human mind something to help it understand life. Early humans did not have the scientific knowledge to think about or understand evolution. These stories explained the creation of life on earth in way that was understandable to them. One could say that the days in Chrisitian/Jewish creation story is the different stages of evolution on earth.

Sorry about that it was totally unintentional. The creation stories were not meant to be scienctific fact. They were meant to give the limited human mind something to help it understand life. Early humans did not have the scientific knowledge to think about or understand evolution. These stories explained the creation of life on earth in way that was understandable to them. One could say that the days in Chrisitian/Jewish creation story is the different stages of evolution on earth.
Of course. You can imagine God trying to explain M-Theory to Adam and Eve. Hell, eleven dimensions confuses even me! And my brain is huge!

Of course. You can imagine God trying to explain M-Theory to Adam and Eve. Hell, eleven dimensions confuses even me! And my brain is huge!

Well, Eve probably would have understood it; but Adam he was pretty dense.;) Lucky me I have no idea what the M-theory or eleven dimensions is.
The point, to me, really is that science and religion are NOT inherently opposed. It is the unbudging on both sides that make it appear that there is some internal conflict between the two.

tag, since this is amazingly civil thus far.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that life, art, music are just theory? Please explain. Can anyone else help out here.

Sorry, sorry. I meant to explain that one better. I'm saying that science is only obtainable and testable. Therefore, anything spanning before we can both obtain and test it must be speculation. Any argument on creation will be theory only, as we cannot obtain nor test anything of creation.

As to life, art, and music. Each of these have their own scientifics to them. Life sciences are, of course, the study of life... in which we study how the living do what and how they do. All of this is obtainable and testable... as life is abundant. Art has its own science, involving mostly geometry and planes. To make "perfect" scientific art one would utilize only geometric angles, polygons, and so forth. Art is also obtainable and testable. Music also has science. The science of meter and beat. David Bowie is considered to have written one of the two most scientifically musical songs. All of his beats and meters are perfect in the song. (I forget which song it is, but I can find it). Music also deals with notes and harmonics, which are extremely complicated. As with before, you can obtain and test music by a scientific standard.

Remember, science is tested through the scientific method. If you cannot use the scientific method on something, then it isn't really testable. Thus, to test any creation we would have to obtain a bit of creation--or, rather, absolutely no matter whatsoever--and test how to create matter where there is none.

If that was a better explanation, then yeah. Creations are all speculations and theories. We can't prove any of them, from the M-Theory to Adam and Eve.

As a side-note, I didn't miss the word "stories". All creations. Until someone completely proves with evidence and an entire experiment that is both testable and repeatable, then I will not believe any "scientific" explanation. To me, however, science and religion are blended. As it is, God created science (in my mind), and He made the world logical. Therefore, whatever He says happened is logical.

Last, uh, side-note.... the serpent in the creation story is just a metaphor. It was Lucifer as an angel. Now, if you say that's still unbelievable... it's just as unbelievable as 11 dimensions, really.

Covert to Pastafarianism. In Heaven, there's a Stripper Factory and a Beer Volcano.
Where do I sign up

Oh, you wacky, non-proselytising Muslims...

Yeah, I know. Zany how some of us actually paid attention to that little bit where it says, "Leave other people alone. What did they ever do to you? Oh, sure, drop a pamphlet where appropriate, but keep yer damn mouth shut."

I find the most appropriate place to drop Islamic pamphlets are on the windshields of the cars parked at the Southern Baptist church on Sunday mornings. Ok, maybe not appropriate, but funny.

Try Christianity (read: follow Jesus)!

a few cool verses from the New Testament... with general topic in bold:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Life vs. Destruction

Matthew 7:13-14 (Jesus talking)
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

----------

Jesus' Mission/Requirements for Salvation

John 3:16-17 (Jesus talking)
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

----------

Requirements for Salvation

Romans 10:8-13 (Paul talking)
But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

-----------

Who is Jesus?

John 14:5-7 (Jesus/Thomas)
Jesus the Way to the Father

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

-----------

Sin vs. Life

Romans 6:22-24 (Paul)
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

-----------

Faith

John 20:24-29 (Jesus/Thomas)

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"

But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Sorry, sorry. I meant to explain that one better. I'm saying that science is only obtainable and testable. Therefore, anything spanning before we can both obtain and test it must be speculation. Any argument on creation will be theory only, as we cannot obtain nor test anything of creation.

As to life, art, and music. Each of these have their own scientifics to them. Life sciences are, of course, the study of life... in which we study how the living do what and how they do. All of this is obtainable and testable... as life is abundant. Art has its own science, involving mostly geometry and planes. To make "perfect" scientific art one would utilize only geometric angles, polygons, and so forth. Art is also obtainable and testable. Music also has science. The science of meter and beat. David Bowie is considered to have written one of the two most scientifically musical songs. All of his beats and meters are perfect in the song. (I forget which song it is, but I can find it). Music also deals with notes and harmonics, which are extremely complicated. As with before, you can obtain and test music by a scientific standard.

Remember, science is tested through the scientific method. If you cannot use the scientific method on something, then it isn't really testable. Thus, to test any creation we would have to obtain a bit of creation--or, rather, absolutely no matter whatsoever--and test how to create matter where there is none.

If that was a better explanation, then yeah. Creations are all speculations and theories. We can't prove any of them, from the M-Theory to Adam and Eve.

As a side-note, I didn't miss the word "stories". All creations. Until someone completely proves with evidence and an entire experiment that is both testable and repeatable, then I will not believe any "scientific" explanation. To me, however, science and religion are blended. As it is, God created science (in my mind), and He made the world logical. Therefore, whatever He says happened is logical.

Last, uh, side-note.... the serpent in the creation story is just a metaphor. It was Lucifer as an angel. Now, if you say that's still unbelievable... it's just as unbelievable as 11 dimensions, really.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts on this.
I would love to find out what songs that Bowie wrote that have perfect beats and meter. I enjoyed Bowie in my younger years and still find myself singing along with poor Major Tom (I think I have the song right.). The Baha'i Faith teaches that science and religion are like two wings on a bird--blended if you want.

As far as Lucifer and the serpent story goes, I follow your thinking on that pretty close. Th Baha'i teaching explain the serpent and Lucifer as the dark nature of the human condition--the duality of humans. We think of the serpent and Lucifer as the ego of humans going against the necessary laws of God and challenging Gods authority.

Covert to Pastafarianism. In Heaven, there's a Stripper Factory and a Beer Volcano.


For I Have Been Touched By His Noodly Appendage.

Ok, let's get started: the problem with any moral code is that in the end it cannot be logically supported. Nothing can be shown to be of value unless one already has some concept of objective value already implanted. Looking at morality from a completely neutral framework it is impossible to weigh any given morality against any other. Any attempt at logical proof of morality is based on linquistic assumptions similar to those that give us the word burgled. Something can logically be good for some purpose, IE facilitate it, and that can be empirically derived. The mistake people make is thinking that because something can be good for a specific thing, that means its possible for an action to be good in general. The fact is this is just a mistake based on the similarity of the phrases rather than anything logical. So morality is unsupportable and thus should not be followed. I would recommend instead following biological urges, they usually add up to about the same thing.
(My emphasis.)

Yes, if there is no God then everything is permitted.

If there is no objective source of morality (no lawgiving entity superior to man and everything else in the universe), then there is nothing objectively right or wrong. If someone says "This is morally right!" and another says "No, that's wrong, THIS is right!", then it's just up to who has the most power to assert his/her/its morality on the other.

Under this condition: Let's assume a national leader decides, for the welfare of the fatherland of course, to kill off millions of people of low physical or mental ability, people with contrary political ideas or beliefs, people of a certain ethnicity, etc. Who or what decides that to be morally right or wrong? You? Then you have to fight this nation to assert your morality over it, and there is still nothing objectively right or wrong, just one opinion against another.


I believe there is objectively right and wrong, good and evil. I also believe in truth, purpose and love. All of these need an objective foundation to have any meaning. Meaning itself, and logic, also need this objective foundation. Otherwise everything is objectively pointless, meaningless and hopeless.

I ask anyone who may be bothered; which alternative seems more true to you when you look at yourself, the world, and people around you? (And by "look" I mean study carefully.) Also: Which alternative would you like to be true?


Everyone you love (a fancy chemical reaction), all you are, do, feel, think and strive for is utterly devoid of meaning. Murder or stealing isn't objectively wrong, society is just imposing its prevalent morality on you. You can do whatever you please. Life is pointless and after life...nothing. "We're all just a cosmic accident, and why that accident happened, we have no idea."

or


There is good despite all evil, and one day every evil will face its judgement. Although often obscured by war, lies, famine, betrayal, terrorist attacks, abuse, and so on, there is beauty in this world and in the minds and eyes of people who love. One day all that is good will be restored and made new. There is hope in the deepest darkness of your dispair. You are loved.


What does the all too easily dismissed thing, popularly assigned "the heart", tell you? What is your deepest longing?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

It seems that "He" is the only one with much of a noodly appendage.

Vegas-Rex, if I ever meet you, I am punching you in the face, kicking you in the balls (assuming you are a man), and stealing your wallet.

:D

I'd try and convert you, but that would be preaching to the converted. You wouldn't step out on a limb and offer yourself up willingly to be converted if you weren't already in that frame of mind.

Confess. What you really want is a lame excuse you can tell your friends so you don't lose face - "Hey, the reason I'm a Christian is because these guys on the Internet gave me such valid arguments..."

I hope all you people preaching pastafarians are dressed as pirate regalia as required
http://www.venganza.org/

The Wiggles have a Pastafarian
http://www.thewiggles.com.au/CD/sailingaroundtheworld.html

Don't forget Ramendan
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1704391

Fair enough, I conclude.

Then, to begin.

Christianity is generally considered to be the "good" religion. A religion of people who love each other and love God. As this being the two main points of Christianity, as Jesus preached that the two greatest commandments were to:
1) Love God, thy Father, and put no one before Him.
2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Those two altruistic thoughts in themselves deem Christianity as a "perfect" religion. You are to love yourself, your neighbor, and God all. It's a pseudo-Communism. However, as we all know, Commuism won't work because of inherent greed. Similarly, Christianity has its own nemisis called "sin nature". (While I'll attempt to not "blanket" everything with sin, it is important to understand that the concept of sin is important to Christianity.) Christianity is all summed up in a book, called the Bible. And, in the Bible, there is a protagonist, an antagonist, and a plot. The protagonists are, of course, God, Jesus, all of those prophets, the apostles, and so forth. The antagonists are Lucifer, his daemons, and those who were against God's people. The plot is how sin and altruism wage war.

I know that really simplifies the Bible, however, that's about all it is. The largest difference is the belief in this book as a guide to salvation, that the book's authour is God Himself, and thus the original Word is perfect. Regardless of humanity's twists on the Book to its present form, the original is perfect. Therefore, for one to believe the Bible most correctly, one must study the most original form. Futhermore, one must believe all parts of the Bible. To not is to be like a broken bottle or cup. You fill it up, and it leaks. Why? Because it is not whole. The possible argument that there are "apparent contradictions" in the Bible is, of course, understandable. However, 90% of them are to human error and translation, the other 10% are based on our understanding of the world and the understanding of the world 2000 years ago. Two completely different societies, and thus some of it may seem alien to us--whereas the statements made sense back then. That is not to say it is "out-dated," merely that a historic understanding of the era is necessary.

Now, with that bit of background, my primary reason for belief is really simple. In order to understand salvation, one must understand sin. To understand sin, one must understand law. To understand Biblical law is no harder to understand than civil law. If you murder a man, you go to jail in civil law. If you murder in the Biblical law, you have sinned. "The wages of sin is death". That is a simple concept. Therefore, you die. However, the largest difference between civil law and Biblical law is in the variety of punishments. Civil law bases everything on severity and precedence. The Bible is much simpler. If you sin, you die. It seems harsh, yes, but it is not. For we have been given something that no one in the civil world can get. That is salvation. By merely professing and truly believing in God and Jesus, as per Romans 10:9 Confess with thy mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in thy heart that He died for you sin, and thou shalt be saved. That is, to say, that by merely atoning with God, showing you accept His benevolence and love, and you are saved with permanence. As it is a "seed of salvation which is planted in your soul". It cannot be removed by any means. Literally, you could renounce God and all He stands for, and you would still be saved. However, you must believe when you are first saying the words... truly believe.

So, it seems self-serving to say "I believe in God because I do not want to go to hell," but the altruistic values of Christianity are still important as well. God is a god of justice and love. Furthermore, the Bible says to be "Christ-like". So... in order to strive and follow the Word, one must be altruistic and self-less. The order of self-lessness is to get others saved under God, as well. In that, I am spreading what has been given to me to others. Good works aren't a necessity, but I would prefer to save my friends from damnation than to love them in life, and weep at the end when they die.

The conclusion is rather simple to me. I was selfish when I became saved, and a self-less friend was the one who brought God to me. I saw that selfishness was pointless and, too, became self-less... in that I have brought God to many friends who, otherwise, might not have truly known Him. And thus I go out on a limb to bring to you the same concept. I expect that you have morality, I expect that you are what the world calls a "good" person. But I also expect that you want something more than what you have, and I offer it. Everyone is selfish, and that is no sin. To be selfish is to love yourself, which the Bible says to do. And to let yourself be damned is to not be selfish nor self-less, it is to be stupid. To let others be damned is to be foolish. To love them and spread what you have learned, that is to be self-less and to follow God's commandments.

So... barring all of these "logical" and "historical" arguments, barring denominative beliefs, and barring all stereotypes save that which I expect out of someone looking to be converted... that is my view on religion. If you accept or decline there, then that is a gateway to finding the history, the reasoning, and the denominative points of view of I have. If you accept, then I can explain those points. If you decline, then you are of no mind to hear more.

I don't mean to butt in, but this is something which has bugged me about Christianity for a long time, and I'd appreciate it if somebody could explain how it makes sense. Specifically: if I've understood you correctly, the way to get into heaven is simply to accept Jesus as your saviour, yes? It doesn't matter what else you've done in the past or will do in the future, you're still saved. Meanwhile, if you haven't accepted Jesus, then you're screwed, no matter what you've done in your life. It's fine to be a genocidal maniac and bring death and suffering to millions, so long as you accept Jesus; do that, and even if you carry on killing and torturing afterwards, you'll still get into heaven. If, however, you are the nicest person to walk the earth, devote your whole life to helping other people, etc, yet you don't accept Jesus as your saviour... off to hell with you.

Now, where exactly is the "benevolence" and "love" in a system that judges people solely on one criterion, which does not have anything to do with one's actual behaviour? Why is this one criterion so much more important than anything else? It's all very well to say "We're all sinners, none of you can meet the standards God sets" (although I must then ask why a benevolent God would deliberately set standards that no human could ever meet), but why should this lump all of humanity together, regardless of actions? Is telling a white lie just as bad as murder? If so, why?

Hmmm... that turned out longer than I was expecting. Apologies if it sounds rant-ish, but as I said, it's been bugging me for a while, and I'd genuinely appreciate hearing your answer to these questions.

Abroad

How about this to set up some assorted moral code.

People who do not want certian things done to them set up laws to protect themselves from those certian things. Oh wait we already have that.

There is of course superstitios reasons for laws as well such as the belief in sin and the belief in Sodam and Gomorah but the same general rule still aplies. Laws are set up to protect people from things they don't want to happen to them.

As to absolute moral code. It is hard to debate what a fictional creator has said through his fictional holy book with it's adherents. It is much easier to debate the protection laws provide vs. the restrictions that get placed on people.

I don't mean to butt in, but this is something which has bugged me about Christianity for a long time, and I'd appreciate it if somebody could explain how it makes sense. Specifically: if I've understood you correctly, the way to get into heaven is simply to accept Jesus as your saviour, yes? It doesn't matter what else you've done in the past or will do in the future, you're still saved. Meanwhile, if you haven't accepted Jesus, then you're screwed, no matter what you've done in your life. It's fine to be a genocidal maniac and bring death and suffering to millions, so long as you accept Jesus; do that, and even if you carry on killing and torturing afterwards, you'll still get into heaven. If, however, you are the nicest person to walk the earth, devote your whole life to helping other people, etc, yet you don't accept Jesus as your saviour... off to hell with you.

Now, where exactly is the "benevolence" and "love" in a system that judges people solely on one criterion, which does not have anything to do with one's actual behaviour? Why is this one criterion so much more important than anything else? It's all very well to say "We're all sinners, none of you can meet the standards God sets" (although I must then ask why a benevolent God would deliberately set standards that no human could ever meet), but why should this lump all of humanity together, regardless of actions? Is telling a white lie just as bad as murder? If so, why?

Hmmm... that turned out longer than I was expecting. Apologies if it sounds rant-ish, but as I said, it's been bugging me for a while, and I'd genuinely appreciate hearing your answer to these questions.


All right. To begin, God is a loving god. As any father would to be his children. But God is also a god of justice. Hence the harshness of his law. If you are failing in being just, then you must die. It's the punishment. If you know the law, then you must be punished by the law.

Here's where there's difference. God is understanding, as part of being just, one must understand. Those who have never known God, never heard of Jesus, never had anyone bring the option of being saved to their lives, those people aren't judged by a law they don't know. That would be unfair.

Okay, to understand how I go through this takes a lot of advanced stuff that many Christians either:
a) have never heard of
b) flat out think is crazy

I believe it makes perfect sense, it's called dispensationalism (I think I spelled it right). Anyway, it breaks down the Bible's time-line into several distinct periods (8, I believe).

Yus, just looked it up: http://www.truthortradition.com/endnotes/purposeoftheages.pdf
If that doesn't work, meh... I 'unno.

Okay. Anyway, most people think it's kind of nuts, but I don't. It makes perfect sense to me. I don't want to explain it in depth on this thing, but if you IM me on AIM (AntitheticTheory) I'll be happy to explain it.

Right. So then, the point of that. The second and third administrations, Conscience and Civil Government, are the important two. They are pre-Mosaic Law. The reason they are important is because of this: if a person has never known the Law, a person can never know sin. If a man cannot know sin, then how can a man be judged in ignorance? Therefore, he must be judged by something else. Many believe in the "good will" of man, and to some extent man does have a good will. That is the conscience, the warm feeling a man gets when he does something good and the bad feeling when he does something wrong. There is also the adherence to law which is important to society. A man naturally follows the government's laws, that is, to not steal, to not speed too fast, to not kill, and so forth. Both of these are something every man must deal with regardless of his relationship with God. Thus, every man can be judged by these credentials. And that is what God does.

To put that in a situational perspective, the second man that you mentioned. The benevolent man who is willing to go out and do things for others, lives justly, and so forth but does not accept Jesus as his Saviour has not done so for one of two reasons:
1) Jesus was never an option to him, because he either never heard of Jesus, or because Christianity was a remote/forbidden concept.
2) He was presented Jesus and God, but did not like the concept and was stead-fastly against the religious idea.
If the first is the case, then the man is judged by his Conscience. Yes, he sinned, but God understands the fallibility of man, and can forgive an otherwise good man for his slip-ups. Therefore, the man shall be deemed worthy by his works (not to be confused with "saved by works" which is a Catholic philosophy where one is not saved by grace, but by his works within the Catholic church).
If the second is the case, then there is a certain debate that I cannot answer. It is like a son that denies he has a father. To do so shames both, and hurts both. Christianity's first commandment is to "love God, thy Father". And so he, knowingly, denies this concept. The debate, however, is in the parable about the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). A parable about a son who, having gotten what he wants from his father, leaves his father and then comes back after (the entire chapter of Luke 15 is similarly thus). The debate is, when the Judgement comes and this benevolent man sees God before his eyes, if he repents then... shall it be enough? Or shall it be too late? As he already turned away from his Father. My personal belief is that God, in His unerring wisdom, will accept this one sinner (as any who has sinned once is a sinner) into His kingdom with great rejoice. Though, harsher people (mostly Catholics and Southern Baptists) say it's too late for the man.

As to the genocidal man, and him being saved, there are stipulations. First, the man must truly accept, truly. He cannot merely utter the words and have a false heart. If, however, he were to accept truly and then turn towards such perverse evils. Yes, he is saved. However, what we do in this life echoes in the next. There will be consequences for such evil actions. As, we are to emulate Jesus. To go so completely astray is to fail in that endeavor. However, the matter of repentence is also important. Once forgiveness is truly sought (truly, it must be the same as being saved) it is given. And that is that. -shrugs- My personal belief, however, is that such a man never truly accepted God from the beginning, and if he does ask for forgiveness, it will be with an empty heart. I don't think such an extremity shall ever, or would ever occur. However, since the hypothesis has arose, I must say that is my answer to the best of my personal ability.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts on this.
I would love to find out what songs that Bowie wrote that have perfect beats and meter. I enjoyed Bowie in my younger years and still find myself singing along with poor Major Tom (I think I have the song right.). The Baha'i Faith teaches that science and religion are like two wings on a bird--blended if you want.

As far as Lucifer and the serpent story goes, I follow your thinking on that pretty close. Th Baha'i teaching explain the serpent and Lucifer as the dark nature of the human condition--the duality of humans. We think of the serpent and Lucifer as the ego of humans going against the necessary laws of God and challenging Gods authority.


The song (www.gullible.info)
• Many mathematicians consider David Bowie's "TVC15" to be the most mathematically beautiful piece of music ever performed. "Take Five" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet is also considered mathematically flawless.

And, while you may be correct in that the "serpent" could have just been the darker nature (see, sin nature). I stand that it was probably Lucifer as an angel in appearance. Either way, it was Lucifer that got Eve to eat the fruit by Christian standards.

All right. To begin, God is a loving god. As any father would to be his children. But God is also a god of justice. Hence the harshness of his law. If you are failing in being just, then you must die. It's the punishment. If you know the law, then you must be punished by the law.

But God makes the law, doesn't he? Why set a law that he knows no-one will be able to follow? Isn't that rather pointless, if everyone's going to fail and hence be considered equally bad?

Here's where there's difference. God is understanding, as part of being just, one must understand. Those who have never known God, never heard of Jesus, never had anyone bring the option of being saved to their lives, those people aren't judged by a law they don't know. That would be unfair.

Okay, to understand how I go through this takes a lot of advanced stuff that many Christians either:
a) have never heard of
b) flat out think is crazy

I believe it makes perfect sense, it's called dispensationalism (I think I spelled it right). Anyway, it breaks down the Bible's time-line into several distinct periods (8, I believe).

Yus, just looked it up: http://www.truthortradition.com/endnotes/purposeoftheages.pdf
If that doesn't work, meh... I 'unno.

Okay. Anyway, most people think it's kind of nuts, but I don't. It makes perfect sense to me. I don't want to explain it in depth on this thing, but if you IM me on AIM (AntitheticTheory) I'll be happy to explain it.

I'm not going to ask how you arrive at that conclusion (most of it would probably go straight over my head, anyway, and I'm not fussed about that aspect of it), but is the basic idea that there are different periods of time with different rules that apply to each?

Right. So then, the point of that. The second and third administrations, Conscience and Civil Government, are the important two. They are pre-Mosaic Law. The reason they are important is because of this: if a person has never known the Law, a person can never know sin. If a man cannot know sin, then how can a man be judged in ignorance? Therefore, he must be judged by something else. Many believe in the "good will" of man, and to some extent man does have a good will. That is the conscience, the warm feeling a man gets when he does something good and the bad feeling when he does something wrong. There is also the adherence to law which is important to society. A man naturally follows the government's laws, that is, to not steal, to not speed too fast, to not kill, and so forth. Both of these are something every man must deal with regardless of his relationship with God. Thus, every man can be judged by these credentials. And that is what God does.

All right, this bit I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. Are you saying that before Christ and the concept of repentance, God judged on the basis of obedience to laws rather than on whether one asked for forgiveness or not, then changed the rules?

To put that in a situational perspective, the second man that you mentioned. The benevolent man who is willing to go out and do things for others, lives justly, and so forth but does not accept Jesus as his Saviour has not done so for one of two reasons:
1) Jesus was never an option to him, because he either never heard of Jesus, or because Christianity was a remote/forbidden concept.
2) He was presented Jesus and God, but did not like the concept and was stead-fastly against the religious idea.
If the first is the case, then the man is judged by his Conscience. Yes, he sinned, but God understands the fallibility of man, and can forgive an otherwise good man for his slip-ups. Therefore, the man shall be deemed worthy by his works (not to be confused with "saved by works" which is a Catholic philosophy where one is not saved by grace, but by his works within the Catholic church).
If the second is the case, then there is a certain debate that I cannot answer. It is like a son that denies he has a father. To do so shames both, and hurts both. Christianity's first commandment is to "love God, thy Father". And so he, knowingly, denies this concept. The debate, however, is in the parable about the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). A parable about a son who, having gotten what he wants from his father, leaves his father and then comes back after (the entire chapter of Luke 15 is similarly thus). The debate is, when the Judgement comes and this benevolent man sees God before his eyes, if he repents then... shall it be enough? Or shall it be too late? As he already turned away from his Father. My personal belief is that God, in His unerring wisdom, will accept this one sinner (as any who has sinned once is a sinner) into His kingdom with great rejoice. Though, harsher people (mostly Catholics and Southern Baptists) say it's too late for the man.

Why must a person be steadfastly opposed to the concept of Jesus and religion in general to not believe in it? I'm not in the least bit opposed to the idea of a big pile of money appearing in my garden, either, but that doesn't mean I believe it's going to happen. What if the person had no special problem with the idea, but did not believe due to lack of evidence?

Or what if they follow another religion? The vast majority of the world is not Christian, in spite of having heard of Christianity, so obviously there's nothing inherent about Christianity that makes it more compelling than, say, Islam, or Hinduism, or whatever. Are people then punished for sticking to what they beleived originally rather than converting?

As to the genocidal man, and him being saved, there are stipulations. First, the man must truly accept, truly. He cannot merely utter the words and have a false heart. If, however, he were to accept truly and then turn towards such perverse evils. Yes, he is saved. However, what we do in this life echoes in the next. There will be consequences for such evil actions.

Consequences such as what? If he's been forgiven, then he's supposed to get into heaven, isn't he? I thought that was the point.

As, we are to emulate Jesus. To go so completely astray is to fail in that endeavor. However, the matter of repentence is also important. Once forgiveness is truly sought (truly, it must be the same as being saved) it is given. And that is that. -shrugs- My personal belief, however, is that such a man never truly accepted God from the beginning, and if he does ask for forgiveness, it will be with an empty heart. I don't think such an extremity shall ever, or would ever occur. However, since the hypothesis has arose, I must say that is my answer to the best of my personal ability.

So a person must specifically repent of all their sins in order to get into heaven, rather than just saying "I'm human, therefore I sin, please forgive me"? I mean, in this case, if the person didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing specifically, then couldn't they ask to be forgiven for the things they believed were sins (lying, for instance), and then carry on as before?

And if you must specifically repent of all your sins, what happens if you forget some? Or don't realise that something you thought was perfectly OK and innocent is actually a sin?

Oh. I was gonna give it a try, but I guess we're not talking about sexuality.

Nevermind.

But God makes the law, doesn't he? Why set a law that he knows no-one will be able to follow? Isn't that rather pointless, if everyone's going to fail and hence be considered equally bad?

It is the punishment for the biting of the fruit. Were we not to have, previously, bitten the apple then there would be no sin. Humanity created sin by following temptation. Prior to eating from the tree of knowledge there was no sin nature. Basically, "the wages of sin is death." It's justice. To sin is to go against God, your neighbor, or yourself. And since those are the three most important laws, they have the most dreadful of consequences.

I'm not going to ask how you arrive at that conclusion (most of it would probably go straight over my head, anyway, and I'm not fussed about that aspect of it), but is the basic idea that there are different periods of time with different rules that apply to each?

Yes. I suppose understanding where they begin and end is important, at least.
Paradise (until Adam and Eve were cast from Eden)
Conscience (until the Flood)
Civil Gov (until Moses went to Mt. Sinai and got the Commandments)
Law (until the day of Pentecost; read: Acts 2)
Grace (us... until... day of Rapture)
Those are the ones that are important to understand. See, they're broken up because of changes in humanity which God's rule had to change to reflect. Until the Flood man had become wicked, so that's why He flooded us. He made a covenent with Noah, and Civil Government became in effect. This lasted until Abraham's people were enslaved by the Egyptians, and then Moses and the Law... which everyone pretty much knows.

All right, this bit I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. Are you saying that before Christ and the concept of repentance, God judged on the basis of obedience to laws rather than on whether one asked for forgiveness or not, then changed the rules?

I'm saying, from the time of Moses to now... yes. So long as you were a Jew you lived by the Mosaic Law. If you were not a Jew then you were judged by your Conscience and your obedience to Civil Government. As, "to know the Law is to know sin." If you didn't know the Law, then you didn't know sin. So... a man in China during Moses' time could not have known the Law. He was judged on personal morality, not by the Law he never knew. By giving the Jews the Law He also gave them a covenent, that if they could follow the Law they would be promised their Holy Land, which was Jerusalem. So... the Jews were getting something if they could follow the Law. That is why they had the Law.
He changed the rules because the Jews had reached the Promised Land, and because He wanted to understand humans better. So He sent Jesus down. Jesus lived on earth then ascended into heaven. Because of this, God understood better human frailty. Also, Jesus was his sheep. As.. the Law was often about sacrificing pure animals in repentence for sins. Jesus was the purest sacrifice and paid for all of our sins. By accepting this fact, you become saved and all of your sins are paid for with Christ's blood.

Why must a person be steadfastly opposed to the concept of Jesus and religion in general to not believe in it? I'm not in the least bit opposed to the idea of a big pile of money appearing in my garden, either, but that doesn't mean I believe it's going to happen. What if the person had no special problem with the idea, but did not believe due to lack of evidence?

Or what if they follow another religion? The vast majority of the world is not Christian, in spite of having heard of Christianity, so obviously there's nothing inherent about Christianity that makes it more compelling than, say, Islam, or Hinduism, or whatever. Are people then punished for sticking to what they beleived originally rather than converting?

If you are not for something, you are against something. That's pretty much how it is in morality and spirituality. Sure, you can dabble... but either you turn from it or you accept it. Now, to clarify, there are certain ways God makes Himself known, even today. However, many of the Christian sects no longer recognize the most noticable ways. They say they're extinct things that God did. Two examples are Tongues and Prophesy, by which God makes Himself known (read Corinthians 12-14). Most Christians don't know about this stuff, and those who do are often labeled by other Christians are nutty cults. However, it is God's Word, therefore I believe it is the right thing to do.

As to the man who follows another religion. There are two things, first there's hearing the word "Christianity" and hear false ideas about it (as many Muslims do), and there's knowing what Christianity is for truth. A man who hears of Christianity but does not know it, cannot be judged by it. That's like me being judged on whether or not I 've heard of War and Peace instead of studying it.
There is a debate here, as I'd said, between the benevolence of God. Many say that a man who did not know God in this life will be given the chance to repent when God's countenence gazes upon them in the Judgement. Assuming the man is not wicked, he shall be forgiven. The other side (often the fanatical Southern Baptists and Catholics) says that if you are not a Christian, if you are not baptized, if you are not devout, if you are not constantly seeking repentance, if you are not doing good works continuously, and (in some cases) you don't believe exactly as they do... you're doomed. It's not a matter that's delved into heavily in the Bible. But I believe the former of the two. A man of another faith that lives righteously and doesn't know God (could have heard of it, but never really know it) shall have his chance.

Consequences such as what? If he's been forgiven, then he's supposed to get into heaven, isn't he? I thought that was the point.

There is also debates about this, divided by "truth or tradition" about whether or not Heaven is the absolute goal. Traditionally, everyone goes to heaven, soars among the clouds, and sings and stuff. But... traditionally, people don't read the Major and Minor Prophets of the Old Testament. They just accept what their friendly Pastor has to say. My belief is in the New Earth, after Heaven. We go to heaven during the Tribulation (7 years of Satan's rule on earth), and then we come back to earth. There will be survivors of humans through the Tribulation, and there will be what is the Millennial Kingdom where those who are saved, those who followed the Law, and those who repented during the Tribulation that live along side of those who are against God, even after seeing Him. There will be a society. And there will be rungs on the society based upon your mortal life. If you were a good person, you will be given a better rank in God's kingdom. If you were wicked (and still saved) you will be given a worse off rank in the Millennial Kingdom. This is the reward to those who are faithful. Otherwise, what is the point? I believe the point is to be one of God's Chosen, and to walk beside Him. And to do that as much as possible, I think one should live a faithful life. Otherwise, I would be a much worse person than I am now. -shrugs- It's mostly in Ezekiel, why I believe what I do.

So a person must specifically repent of all their sins in order to get into heaven, rather than just saying "I'm human, therefore I sin, please forgive me"? I mean, in this case, if the person didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing specifically, then couldn't they ask to be forgiven for the things they believed were sins (lying, for instance), and then carry on as before?

And if you must specifically repent of all your sins, what happens if you forget some? Or don't realise that something you thought was perfectly OK and innocent is actually a sin?

No, I don't believe you have to be specifically repentant of every sin. That is a mostly Catholic idea, which is where their confessional comes in. I believe that it's as simple as in the Lord's Prayer, "forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us." It's a blanket statement, just as repentance should be. If you truly repent, then how are you going to truly repent for only one little lie without being sorrow for the larger lies, the thefts, and other sins you've committed? And if you're sorrowful for the murder, why would you not be sorrow to have lied? -shrugs- I think a man that is sorrowful shall be forgiven for all misdeeds. And yes, you could constantly ask for forgiveness for everything and then carry on as before, but the question is: are you truly sorrowful if you don't attempt to atone? Sure, you may be the first couple of times, but after a while it's merely words uttered and nothing more.

So, I don't believe in specific repentance, but in full forgiveness. And, if you think it's okay to sin, then you do not know Christianity. You, I assume, aren't Christian and you know what sin is. How could a Christian not know what sin is? I can't really say how that would play out because that, to me, is unfathomable. However, assuming the person was Christian, he would be saved and get into heaven. God sees into the hearts of men, and so He would see the misguided mind of this person, and make His decision... which I cannot pretend to know.

Serve Unicron or he will devour you. Pretty simple. Even if you aren't converted, you'll be converted into a snack for the Chaos Bringer.

Pascals wager. Though I dont take it myself.

Bump, for Centralis. 'Cause I wanna keep it goin'.

It is the punishment for the biting of the fruit. Were we not to have, previously, bitten the apple then there would be no sin. Humanity created sin by following temptation. Prior to eating from the tree of knowledge there was no sin nature. Basically, "the wages of sin is death." It's justice. To sin is to go against God, your neighbor, or yourself. And since those are the three most important laws, they have the most dreadful of consequences.

Why does the fact that Adam and Eve ate the fruit make humanity inherently sinful? I mean, OK, it's supposed to have made them, specifically, sinful (although I don't see what's so bad about obtaining "knowledge of good and evil"), but why should this apply to all of their descendants? It's not like they, personally, did anything.

Also, why is it a crime to "go against yourself"?

Yes. I suppose understanding where they begin and end is important, at least.
Paradise (until Adam and Eve were cast from Eden)
Conscience (until the Flood)
Civil Gov (until Moses went to Mt. Sinai and got the Commandments)
Law (until the day of Pentecost; read: Acts 2)
Grace (us... until... day of Rapture)
Those are the ones that are important to understand. See, they're broken up because of changes in humanity which God's rule had to change to reflect. Until the Flood man had become wicked, so that's why He flooded us. He made a covenent with Noah, and Civil Government became in effect. This lasted until Abraham's people were enslaved by the Egyptians, and then Moses and the Law... which everyone pretty much knows.



I'm saying, from the time of Moses to now... yes. So long as you were a Jew you lived by the Mosaic Law. If you were not a Jew then you were judged by your Conscience and your obedience to Civil Government. As, "to know the Law is to know sin." If you didn't know the Law, then you didn't know sin. So... a man in China during Moses' time could not have known the Law. He was judged on personal morality, not by the Law he never knew. By giving the Jews the Law He also gave them a covenent, that if they could follow the Law they would be promised their Holy Land, which was Jerusalem. So... the Jews were getting something if they could follow the Law. That is why they had the Law.

Ok, I get it.

He changed the rules because the Jews had reached the Promised Land, and because He wanted to understand humans better. So He sent Jesus down. Jesus lived on earth then ascended into heaven. Because of this, God understood better human frailty.

So you don't consider God to be omniscient, then?

Also, Jesus was his sheep. As.. the Law was often about sacrificing pure animals in repentence for sins. Jesus was the purest sacrifice and paid for all of our sins. By accepting this fact, you become saved and all of your sins are paid for with Christ's blood.

This begs the question: if God really wants to forgive us for our sins, and sets the rules on what is and is not "sin", why does he have to go to so much trouble to do so? Why not simply say "I forgive you", and let that be the end of it?

If you are not for something, you are against something. That's pretty much how it is in morality and spirituality. Sure, you can dabble... but either you turn from it or you accept it.

In the case of morality, I would agree with you, since moral systems are guidelines on how to live, not statements as to what is true. Thus, liking a moral code and accepting it, or disliking it and rejecting it, are basically one and the same.

Religion, however, is a statement of how things are, in addition to how people should act. One can like a particular idea (i.e. think "It would be great if this were true") without believing it to be true (as in the case of my big pile of money; I'd love it if happened, but that doesn't mean I think it will).

Now, to clarify, there are certain ways God makes Himself known, even today. However, many of the Christian sects no longer recognize the most noticable ways. They say they're extinct things that God did. Two examples are Tongues and Prophesy, by which God makes Himself known (read Corinthians 12-14). Most Christians don't know about this stuff, and those who do are often labeled by other Christians are nutty cults. However, it is God's Word, therefore I believe it is the right thing to do.

You believe what is the right thing to do?

As to the man who follows another religion. There are two things, first there's hearing the word "Christianity" and hear false ideas about it (as many Muslims do), and there's knowing what Christianity is for truth. A man who hears of Christianity but does not know it, cannot be judged by it. That's like me being judged on whether or not I 've heard of War and Peace instead of studying it.
There is a debate here, as I'd said, between the benevolence of God. Many say that a man who did not know God in this life will be given the chance to repent when God's countenence gazes upon them in the Judgement. Assuming the man is not wicked, he shall be forgiven. The other side (often the fanatical Southern Baptists and Catholics) says that if you are not a Christian, if you are not baptized, if you are not devout, if you are not constantly seeking repentance, if you are not doing good works continuously, and (in some cases) you don't believe exactly as they do... you're doomed. It's not a matter that's delved into heavily in the Bible. But I believe the former of the two. A man of another faith that lives righteously and doesn't know God (could have heard of it, but never really know it) shall have his chance.

So your belief is that anyone who truly understands Christianity, if they are a good person, will convert?

There is also debates about this, divided by "truth or tradition" about whether or not Heaven is the absolute goal. Traditionally, everyone goes to heaven, soars among the clouds, and sings and stuff. But... traditionally, people don't read the Major and Minor Prophets of the Old Testament. They just accept what their friendly Pastor has to say. My belief is in the New Earth, after Heaven. We go to heaven during the Tribulation (7 years of Satan's rule on earth), and then we come back to earth. There will be survivors of humans through the Tribulation, and there will be what is the Millennial Kingdom where those who are saved, those who followed the Law, and those who repented during the Tribulation that live along side of those who are against God, even after seeing Him. There will be a society. And there will be rungs on the society based upon your mortal life. If you were a good person, you will be given a better rank in God's kingdom. If you were wicked (and still saved) you will be given a worse off rank in the Millennial Kingdom. This is the reward to those who are faithful. Otherwise, what is the point? I believe the point is to be one of God's Chosen, and to walk beside Him. And to do that as much as possible, I think one should live a faithful life. Otherwise, I would be a much worse person than I am now. -shrugs- It's mostly in Ezekiel, why I believe what I do.

Interesting. So the consequences of one's actions are played out in this thousand-year Kingdom, and everything after that is basically the same (assuming one was "saved", that is)?

No, I don't believe you have to be specifically repentant of every sin. That is a mostly Catholic idea, which is where their confessional comes in. I believe that it's as simple as in the Lord's Prayer, "forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us." It's a blanket statement, just as repentance should be. If you truly repent, then how are you going to truly repent for only one little lie without being sorrow for the larger lies, the thefts, and other sins you've committed? And if you're sorrowful for the murder, why would you not be sorrow to have lied? -shrugs- I think a man that is sorrowful shall be forgiven for all misdeeds. And yes, you could constantly ask for forgiveness for everything and then carry on as before, but the question is: are you truly sorrowful if you don't attempt to atone? Sure, you may be the first couple of times, but after a while it's merely words uttered and nothing more.

What I was asking is, if someone asks for their sins to be forgiven, must they be aware that a particular action is a sin to be forgiven for it? If I'm reading you right, you're saying that if you're a Christian, you know whether something is a sin or not. Have I understood you correctly?

So, I don't believe in specific repentance, but in full forgiveness. And, if you think it's okay to sin, then you do not know Christianity. You, I assume, aren't Christian and you know what sin is. How could a Christian not know what sin is?

No, I'm not a Christian. And I'm not saying that it's acceptable to sin in Christianity (although there are undoubtedly many things that you would consider sinful that I have no problem with); I was asking what happens if someone asks to be forgiven for their sins, but has done something which they don't think is a sin but nevertheless is.

I can't really say how that would play out because that, to me, is unfathomable. However, assuming the person was Christian, he would be saved and get into heaven. God sees into the hearts of men, and so He would see the misguided mind of this person, and make His decision... which I cannot pretend to know.

Fair enough.

And regarding Pascal's Wager - I've never understood how one is supposed to take it in the first place. How can you genuinely believe in something on the basis that "if it's true, I'll benefit from believing in it"? In giving it as a reason in the first place, you're saying that you don't really think it's true. How is that belief?

Besides, it has other problems, like "what if you believe in the wrong God, and the real one doesn't like that?" and, in particular, "what if God really doesn't like people who try to cheat like that?"

Why does the fact that Adam and Eve ate the fruit make humanity inherently sinful? I mean, OK, it's supposed to have made them, specifically, sinful (although I don't see what's so bad about obtaining "knowledge of good and evil"), but why should this apply to all of their descendants? It's not like they, personally, did anything.

Also, why is it a crime to "go against yourself"?

Because before then, humanity was without sin nature. Humans did not know, nor could they comprehend sin. It was as alien as anything I cannot name. To obtain the knowledge is to know sin. That makes life much different. Imagine not being able to fathom stealing. As in, it's a concept as foreign to you as the mating rituals of a pygmy tribe in Brazil. You would never think about it, and it didn't exist. The same with pre-marital sex, lust, greed, hatred, murder, glutony, sloth, envy, and so forth. Then, suddenly, you are bombarded with all of this. Truly a Pandora's Box. It was a curse... the reason we pay is that God gave us a choice when He said, "You can do whatever you want, but don't eat from that tree." In that statement there was the choice of obedience or disobedience. As the original people first disobeyed, we must pay for their sins. Don't be disillusioned, they paid far worse. To walk next to God, to live in Paradise, and then to be cast out is far worse than anything you or I could ever imagine.

Also, it is a Christian crime to go against one's self as there are two great commandments:
Love God, thy Father
Love thy neighbor as thyself
The second means you have to love thyself as well. You would not, as a Christian, hurt your neighbor... so why would you hurt yourself? To go against either your neighbor or yourself is to fail that commandment.

So you don't consider God to be omniscient, then?

Not in the respect that He knows the future and everything is predestination. I believe He knows the heart of man and men. That is to say, he knows the heart of you and me perfectly. He knows what evils lay within either of us. And He can make a deduction as to how we react in any given situation. It is like having a best friend that can finish your sentences before you begin them. I consider God to be all-knowing, yes, about all there is that can be known. No one can truly know the future.

This begs the question: if God really wants to forgive us for our sins, and sets the rules on what is and is not "sin", why does he have to go to so much trouble to do so? Why not simply say "I forgive you", and let that be the end of it?

This answer will further elaborate on the previous.
If you are to tell a child not to eat a cookie from the cookie jar, his inclination is to do so. Say he does, and you see the crumbs. You tell him, "It's all right." But then give him the same choice. He has not learned that he did anything wrong. He merely learned that there is no punishment for disobedience.
God is a god of justice and of love. It is loving to teach your child, and loving to punish them for what they do that is truly wrong.
If, in the previous example, you were to put the child in time-out and explain to the child that taking a cookie when being told not to is wrong, then he is less likely to repeat the mistake, as he knows there is a punishment for disobedience.
The logic is that, they knew vaguely what sin was. And they knew what was wrong because of their conscience. God hoped this would suffice, and thus He let man live by their conscience. Man grew too wicked, however, and thus God found that man's sin nature overwhelmed his conscience. Man no longer cared and lost God. God allowed the Flood to happen, but saved Noah. He made a covenent with Noah and thus God's children were with Him again. This became the time of Civil Government. However, Civil Government also failed. People came to believe and worship other dieties and idols. And thus God made a covenent with Abraham. And it was good. Abraham's descendants (the Israelites) failed to uphold their end, and thus they were punished. God rescued them with Moses, and made the Law. It spelled out what was right and wrong, that way man had no doubt as to what God wanted from him. Man was forced to sacrifice innocent creatures to pay for his sin. This was to teach man what sin was, and that to pay for sin, something must die. Man struggled and could not keep to the Law. However, the purpose was to teach man that he could not keep to the Law and that he must accept God truly in order to gain God's graces. That is when Jesus was sent, when the world was best ready to hear God's Words from His Son. And, I must say, God's timing was impeccible. As... much of the world is Christian today.

In the case of morality, I would agree with you, since moral systems are guidelines on how to live, not statements as to what is true. Thus, liking a moral code and accepting it, or disliking it and rejecting it, are basically one and the same.

Religion, however, is a statement of how things are, in addition to how people should act. One can like a particular idea (i.e. think "It would be great if this were true") without believing it to be true (as in the case of my big pile of money; I'd love it if happened, but that doesn't mean I think it will).

Christianity is still morality based. Either a person agrees with the moral terms or does not. Either a person accepts the spiritual terms, or does not. If he cannot do both then how can he truly accept Christianity? That is like me saying, "I want to murder, rape, and pillage in the name of God." It makes no sense. Certainly, one can like the idea of a god that is moral, just, and loving. But if one loves that idea and crosses pathes with something that offers just that... then why not take it? To deny what your spirit wants is foolishness.


You believe what is the right thing to do?

The spiritual manifestations mentioned in Corinthians 12-14 (to list them: Tongues, interpretation of Tongues, Prophesy, Word of Wisdom, Word of Knowledge, Healing, Miracles, Discernation of Spirits, and Faith). The Bible says to "not be ignorant," a phrase found only... 6 (7?) times in the Bible, "of spiritual manifestations".
[Your typical Bible will probably say "gifts," however, that is a mis-translation. The correct English term is manifestation.]

So your belief is that anyone who truly understands Christianity, if they are a good person, will convert?

Assuming they are looking to convert. The key is in wanting God. A man could study Christianity his entire life, but if he does not want God then he will not convert. Conversely, if a man wants God, but knows little of Christianity, he may convert simply for the longing in his heart, soul, and mind. Similarly, I could study Islam all day... but if I don't want to become a Muslim, I will not. Whereas, if I wanted to... I would follow the Pillars and become one.

Interesting. So the consequences of one's actions are played out in this thousand-year Kingdom, and everything after that is basically the same (assuming one was "saved", that is)?

The Millennial Kingdom is Jesus' rule on earth, it will be a society where humans, perfect humans (those whom are saved), and angels can all intermingle. During this time, what we do in this life shall reflect in that one. Afterwards there is a final battle between Jesus and Satan. It will be human against human and angel against daemon. There will be those humans that want God and will die for Him. And there will be those who side with the Adversary, and will die to bring His demise. Assuming God wins (which the Bible says will happen, so I have faith He will), Satan and his minions are banished into the Lake of Fire (where we get our proverbial hell) and the Eternal Paradise shall start. I'm not sure exactly how the Eternal Paradise's system will work. Perhaps it shall be slightly Buddhistic, in that what we do in the Millennial Kingdom could atone for this life and we could come out greater. Or it could stay the same. Or something completely different. The Eternal Paradise isn't delved into much in the Bible. It's irrelevent to our earthly timeline.

What I was asking is, if someone asks for their sins to be forgiven, must they be aware that a particular action is a sin to be forgiven for it? If I'm reading you right, you're saying that if you're a Christian, you know whether something is a sin or not. Have I understood you correctly?

There's no inherent knowledge or immediate revelation that occurs. But a devout Christian studies and learns to know what sin is. The overall rule of thumb is that if it conflicts with God, your neighbor, or yourself, it is a sin. However, one doesn't have to know it is a sin to receive forgiveness (to my knowledge). But, in return, how often do you hear of normal (sane) people doing something that is wrong without knowing it is wrong? Everyone knows stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, hating is wrong... these things we ask for forgiveness for. There is a distinct difference between us and Jews, however. Not everyone cares that by the Law, having sex with a woman during her menstruation is a sin. And rightly so. It's not wrong by Christianity's standards, so long as she is married to the man she is having sex with. Obscure things like that aren't sinful in Christianity because they do not hurt you, God, or your neighbor. A more devout Christian, however, does try to follow the Law as closely as possible.

No, I'm not a Christian. And I'm not saying that it's acceptable to sin in Christianity (although there are undoubtedly many things that you would consider sinful that I have no problem with); I was asking what happens if someone asks to be forgiven for their sins, but has done something which they don't think is a sin but nevertheless is.

Read above. They cross apply.



As to Pascal's Wager. I assume this is the same man that wrote the pyramid to the necessities of life. To my knowledge, he committed suicide. Obviously, he wasn't so good at this whole spiritual thing.

Because before then, humanity was without sin nature. Humans did not know, nor could they comprehend sin. It was as alien as anything I cannot name. To obtain the knowledge is to know sin. That makes life much different. Imagine not being able to fathom stealing. As in, it's a concept as foreign to you as the mating rituals of a pygmy tribe in Brazil. You would never think about it, and it didn't exist. The same with pre-marital sex, lust, greed, hatred, murder, glutony, sloth, envy, and so forth. Then, suddenly, you are bombarded with all of this. Truly a Pandora's Box. It was a curse... the reason we pay is that God gave us a choice when He said, "You can do whatever you want, but don't eat from that tree." In that statement there was the choice of obedience or disobedience. As the original people first disobeyed, we must pay for their sins. Don't be disillusioned, they paid far worse. To walk next to God, to live in Paradise, and then to be cast out is far worse than anything you or I could ever imagine.

So why put the tree there in the first place? Especially if God can, as you said below, know how anyone will react to any given circumstance? He would have to know, then, that humans would eat from the tree, and therefore be cursed with this "sin nature". If he didn't want it to happen, then, why allow it to?

And, again: why must this "sin nature" be passed on to all the descendants of Adam and Eve? They ate the fruit. None of their descendants did. Why must they suffer for it?

Also, it is a Christian crime to go against one's self as there are two great commandments:
Love God, thy Father
Love thy neighbor as thyself
The second means you have to love thyself as well. You would not, as a Christian, hurt your neighbor... so why would you hurt yourself? To go against either your neighbor or yourself is to fail that commandment.

Fair enough.

Not in the respect that He knows the future and everything is predestination. I believe He knows the heart of man and men. That is to say, he knows the heart of you and me perfectly. He knows what evils lay within either of us. And He can make a deduction as to how we react in any given situation. It is like having a best friend that can finish your sentences before you begin them. I consider God to be all-knowing, yes, about all there is that can be known. No one can truly know the future.

Hang on - if God knows everything about how everyone will react in any given circumstance, doesn't that basically mean he does know the future (of humanity, anyway)? That would mean that he could follow the results of any given set of events out as far into the future as he liked. And it also means he shouldn't have to keep changing the rules to make people act right, because he'd know what it would take to make them abide by the rules.

This answer will further elaborate on the previous.
If you are to tell a child not to eat a cookie from the cookie jar, his inclination is to do so. Say he does, and you see the crumbs. You tell him, "It's all right." But then give him the same choice. He has not learned that he did anything wrong. He merely learned that there is no punishment for disobedience.
God is a god of justice and of love. It is loving to teach your child, and loving to punish them for what they do that is truly wrong.
If, in the previous example, you were to put the child in time-out and explain to the child that taking a cookie when being told not to is wrong, then he is less likely to repeat the mistake, as he knows there is a punishment for disobedience.

Or you can put the cookie jar out of reach, which would seem to be the only thing to do if your child is completely unable to stop itself from reaching in, as humanity is apparently unable to stop itself from sinning.

The logic is that, they knew vaguely what sin was. And they knew what was wrong because of their conscience. God hoped this would suffice, and thus He let man live by their conscience. Man grew too wicked, however, and thus God found that man's sin nature overwhelmed his conscience. Man no longer cared and lost God. God allowed the Flood to happen, but saved Noah. He made a covenent with Noah and thus God's children were with Him again. This became the time of Civil Government. However, Civil Government also failed. People came to believe and worship other dieties and idols. And thus God made a covenent with Abraham. And it was good. Abraham's descendants (the Israelites) failed to uphold their end, and thus they were punished. God rescued them with Moses, and made the Law. It spelled out what was right and wrong, that way man had no doubt as to what God wanted from him. Man was forced to sacrifice innocent creatures to pay for his sin. This was to teach man what sin was, and that to pay for sin, something must die. Man struggled and could not keep to the Law. However, the purpose was to teach man that he could not keep to the Law and that he must accept God truly in order to gain God's graces. That is when Jesus was sent, when the world was best ready to hear God's Words from His Son.

Why must the innocent die in payment for sin? I thought one of the basic principles of justice was that you punished the guilty, not the innocent.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit confused here as to what God actually wants. Does he:

a) want people to stop sinning;
b) want to forgive people for sinning?

If it's a), then it seems to me that the thing to do would be to simply remove the "sin nature" altogether, since, apparently, having one makes it impossible to avoid sinning. If it's b), then why not simply do it by fiat? He makes the rules, after all.

And, I must say, God's timing was impeccible. As... much of the world is Christian today.

And yet, another large portion of the world is Muslim. And another is Hindu. And another is Buddhist. And so on. Do you consider this to be evidence that all of these religions were brought about by God? Even though none of them agree?

Christianity is still morality based. Either a person agrees with the moral terms or does not. Either a person accepts the spiritual terms, or does not. If he cannot do both then how can he truly accept Christianity?

The point I was making is that one need not be specifically opposed to a religious concept to not believe in it.

That is like me saying, "I want to murder, rape, and pillage in the name of God." It makes no sense.

Plenty of people have said (and done) precisely that. And doesn't the Old Testament have plenty of that sort of thing, all done at the behest of God? Or, in the case of Egypt, by God himself?

Certainly, one can like the idea of a god that is moral, just, and loving. But if one loves that idea and crosses pathes with something that offers just that... then why not take it? To deny what your spirit wants is foolishness.

There is a difference between what one wants to be true and what is true. If I fervently desire for there not to be a God, does that cause God to not exist?

The spiritual manifestations mentioned in Corinthians 12-14 (to list them: Tongues, interpretation of Tongues, Prophesy, Word of Wisdom, Word of Knowledge, Healing, Miracles, Discernation of Spirits, and Faith). The Bible says to "not be ignorant," a phrase found only... 6 (7?) times in the Bible, "of spiritual manifestations".
[Your typical Bible will probably say "gifts," however, that is a mis-translation. The correct English term is manifestation.]

So you were saying that you believe it is "the right thing to do" to believe in such things?

Assuming they are looking to convert. The key is in wanting God. A man could study Christianity his entire life, but if he does not want God then he will not convert. Conversely, if a man wants God, but knows little of Christianity, he may convert simply for the longing in his heart, soul, and mind. Similarly, I could study Islam all day... but if I don't want to become a Muslim, I will not. Whereas, if I wanted to... I would follow the Pillars and become one.

So what happens to the man who has lived a virtuous life (insofar as this is possible for humans), and has studied religion, but never felt the urge to convert?

The Millennial Kingdom is Jesus' rule on earth, it will be a society where humans, perfect humans (those whom are saved), and angels can all intermingle. During this time, what we do in this life shall reflect in that one. Afterwards there is a final battle between Jesus and Satan. It will be human against human and angel against daemon. There will be those humans that want God and will die for Him. And there will be those who side with the Adversary, and will die to bring His demise. Assuming God wins (which the Bible says will happen, so I have faith He will), Satan and his minions are banished into the Lake of Fire (where we get our proverbial hell) and the Eternal Paradise shall start. I'm not sure exactly how the Eternal Paradise's system will work. Perhaps it shall be slightly Buddhistic, in that what we do in the Millennial Kingdom could atone for this life and we could come out greater. Or it could stay the same. Or something completely different. The Eternal Paradise isn't delved into much in the Bible. It's irrelevent to our earthly timeline.

Ok. A question, though: are those thrown into the Lake of Fire let out eventually, or do they remain there to burn for all eternity? If the latter, what is the justification for this?

There's no inherent knowledge or immediate revelation that occurs. But a devout Christian studies and learns to know what sin is. The overall rule of thumb is that if it conflicts with God, your neighbor, or yourself, it is a sin. However, one doesn't have to know it is a sin to receive forgiveness (to my knowledge). But, in return, how often do you hear of normal (sane) people doing something that is wrong without knowing it is wrong? Everyone knows stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, hating is wrong... these things we ask for forgiveness for. There is a distinct difference between us and Jews, however. Not everyone cares that by the Law, having sex with a woman during her menstruation is a sin. And rightly so. It's not wrong by Christianity's standards, so long as she is married to the man she is having sex with. Obscure things like that aren't sinful in Christianity because they do not hurt you, God, or your neighbor. A more devout Christian, however, does try to follow the Law as closely as possible.



Read above. They cross apply.

I see.

As to Pascal's Wager. I assume this is the same man that wrote the pyramid to the necessities of life. To my knowledge, he committed suicide. Obviously, he wasn't so good at this whole spiritual thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

It seems you're thinking of someone else; he died after an illness, not through suicide. And the only pyramid-like thing I know of in connection to him is Pascal's Triangle, which is a mathematial concept.

So why put the tree there in the first place? Especially if God can, as you said below, know how anyone will react to any given circumstance? He would have to know, then, that humans would eat from the tree, and therefore be cursed with this "sin nature". If he didn't want it to happen, then, why allow it to?

And, again: why must this "sin nature" be passed on to all the descendants of Adam and Eve? They ate the fruit. None of their descendants did. Why must they suffer for it?

Or you can put the cookie jar out of reach, which would seem to be the only thing to do if your child is completely unable to stop itself from reaching in, as humanity is apparently unable to stop itself from sinning.



God's primary gift to humans when He made us was the concept of Free Will. That we were allowed to disobey God if we wanted. To not give us that is to make us slaves. God wanted us to worship Him of our own free will. He had to give us some sort of way to decide disobedience. The reason that Adam and Eve ate the fruit, also, was because of Satan, who tempted them. Before this they were perfectly content.

He let it continue because, if you are to give the next humans a choice... will they not, most likely, do what their predecessors did? I mean, Adam and Eve's child was the first murderer. It's logical to conclude that if God were to say, "Now they bit the fruit. Please, don't." And try over with the next set, that Satan would tempt and man would fall, again.

As for the cookie jar. One must assume that God wants us to love him out of choice, and so the cookie jar must be in reach. If you move the cookie jar out of reach the child doesn't learn obedience. Obedience is in have the opportunity to do wrong and denying it. Not having the opportunity is easy to not do wrong.


Hang on - if God knows everything about how everyone will react in any given circumstance, doesn't that basically mean he does know the future (of humanity, anyway)? That would mean that he could follow the results of any given set of events out as far into the future as he liked. And it also means he shouldn't have to keep changing the rules to make people act right, because he'd know what it would take to make them abide by the rules.

Arguable, but I have to say that the character of Satan interposes. Satan can provide temptation that the heart of man is swayed from the natural course. Thus things are left in a sort of balance. God knows the heart of man, but so does Satan. God gives man free will, Satan tries to tempt man into doing wrong. So, a situation arises, God can only hope the man will follow the good path, but Satan tempts man down the dark side. I hate how Star Wars that sounds. Anyway, the only way God interferes in our lives is if we let Him, by prayer. Satan doesn't have that adversity to assaulting our free will. So, while God knows our hearts, he doesn't manipulate events around them. Satan is the one that does that. God wrote the universe and all physics, therefore he wrote cause and effect as well. He will not change what the effect of something is just because it's what He wants. That is to break His own rules, and in doing so, to go against Himself. Which would make him no longer infinite.

I'll post the rest after work... Sorry, I didn't hink it would take me that long.

How free is free will if one of the choices results in one's own annihilation?

God's primary gift to humans when He made us was the concept of Free Will. That we were allowed to disobey God if we wanted. To not give us that is to make us slaves. God wanted us to worship Him of our own free will. He had to give us some sort of way to decide disobedience. The reason that Adam and Eve ate the fruit, also, was because of Satan, who tempted them. Before this they were perfectly content.

Two questions:

1) Where did Satan come from, then?

2) If God really wants people to freely choose whether to sin or not, why does he punish sinners so severely? Wouldn't a truly free choice require that no external pressure is applied to choose either one?

He let it continue because, if you are to give the next humans a choice... will they not, most likely, do what their predecessors did? I mean, Adam and Eve's child was the first murderer. It's logical to conclude that if God were to say, "Now they bit the fruit. Please, don't." And try over with the next set, that Satan would tempt and man would fall, again.

And yet if humans have free will, couldn't they just as well choose to resist Satan?

As for the cookie jar. One must assume that God wants us to love him out of choice, and so the cookie jar must be in reach. If you move the cookie jar out of reach the child doesn't learn obedience. Obedience is in have the opportunity to do wrong and denying it. Not having the opportunity is easy to not do wrong.

But isn't the whole point of Christianity that humanity is incapable of not sinning? If it's impossible to teach humanity "obedience", then why try?

Arguable, but I have to say that the character of Satan interposes. Satan can provide temptation that the heart of man is swayed from the natural course. Thus things are left in a sort of balance. God knows the heart of man, but so does Satan. God gives man free will, Satan tries to tempt man into doing wrong. So, a situation arises, God can only hope the man will follow the good path, but Satan tempts man down the dark side. I hate how Star Wars that sounds. Anyway, the only way God interferes in our lives is if we let Him, by prayer. Satan doesn't have that adversity to assaulting our free will. So, while God knows our hearts, he doesn't manipulate events around them. Satan is the one that does that. God wrote the universe and all physics, therefore he wrote cause and effect as well. He will not change what the effect of something is just because it's what He wants. That is to break His own rules, and in doing so, to go against Himself. Which would make him no longer infinite.

I'll post the rest after work... Sorry, I didn't hink it would take me that long.

So, hang on... God wants us to choose to obey him of our own free will, but at the same time, he allows Satan to "assault our free will"? How does that work? Surely, if he was so concerned about people choosing freely, he would not interfere himself, but he would prevent Satan from doing so as well.

And would I be right in concluding from this that you don't believe God can know what Satan is doing or planning?

To combine... the first post, then the newest post:

Why must the innocent die in payment for sin? I thought one of the basic principles of justice was that you punished the guilty, not the innocent.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit confused here as to what God actually wants. Does he:

a) want people to stop sinning;
b) want to forgive people for sinning?

If it's a), then it seems to me that the thing to do would be to simply remove the "sin nature" altogether, since, apparently, having one makes it impossible to avoid sinning. If it's b), then why not simply do it by fiat? He makes the rules, after all.

The innocent do not die. It was a lamb that was slaughtered as a sacrifice (something done in many ancient cultures). Jesus is the only innocent person that died for the guilty man's sins. And that was for all of our sins. He didn't have to, he chose to.

Anyway, God wants us to stop sinning. However, He will forgive us for sinning if we ask it of Him. As for making stuff simple. Who learns if there is no hardship? Certainly that seems easier and better, but is that not just human's lazy logic speaking? One must consider that each action has consequences.

And yet, another large portion of the world is Muslim. And another is Hindu. And another is Buddhist. And so on. Do you consider this to be evidence that all of these religions were brought about by God? Even though none of them agree?

I don't like expressing my more "fundementalist" opinions because those of other faiths tend to hate me for them, however I will... on the basis that I do not intend to argue. I believe they are daemonic "gods". The Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Aztecs, and Egyptians all believed in their own gods. Why believe in something without proof? Daemons can provide "miraculous" proof of their "godhood". Because of this, people flock to them. It could be argued that Yahweh, too, is a daemon. However, I don't believe that because I'm Christian. Furthermore, that does not mean the worshippers are evil... merely misguided. To not be for is to be against. If you don't believe in God, then Satan has you. Regardless of your faith in your other god. It's a harsh viewpoint, but many other religions will say the same.

Plenty of people have said (and done) precisely that. And doesn't the Old Testament have plenty of that sort of thing, all done at the behest of God? Or, in the case of Egypt, by God himself?

No. The Bible never once says to rape, pillage, and plunder. The people the Israelites killed were people that were specifically against God. Canaanites, Baalites, Philistines, and so forth all had agendas against the Israelites. Thus God told His people to wipe them out and destroy their religious alters, idols, and so forth. Not to rape the women, take their money, and burn the towns. Just... destroy everything. When the Israelites would fail and take money or idols, God would punish the Israelites and allow them into slavery or something else. In today's world, killing the women and children may seem harsh... but in their world, those women and children were just as agains the Israelites as the men and would fight tooth and nail. Either way they would have died. You can't view it with modern "morality" where women are gentle.
As to those that did Crusades and what not. They were not under the dictum of God, but under the dictum of the Pope or their King in order to prevent civil war. Using God's name just inspired the knightly faith, but that doesn't mean it was in God's name and that God sanctified it.

There is a difference between what one wants to be true and what is true. If I fervently desire for there not to be a God, does that cause God to not exist?

Reality is perception. For you, God will not exist. You will not see what He does, nor hear His voice, nor anything else. Ultimately, God does exist... if not to you. Likewise, I believe God exists. Therefore I see unexplainable things and believe they are God, and I hear Him talk to me, and I have an explanation. It's what you open your mind to that will come true. That's why you have to decide for yourself. Fact and fiction are up the the mind of the man deciding, but the truth comes out in the end. I can't really argue existance because of that reason. If you don't believe in God, then God will not exist for you. If you don't want to believe in God, then God will not exist for you.

So you were saying that you believe it is "the right thing to do" to believe in such things?

According to my faith, yes. Even to practice such things in an orderly fashion. I don't see why it wouldn't be the right thing to do. Of course, once again, that is based on my faith. My logic I already explained. It's in the Bible, so it must be true.

So what happens to the man who has lived a virtuous life (insofar as this is possible for humans), and has studied religion, but never felt the urge to convert?

Then he doesn't want God to exist. -shrugs- I can't say what will happen to him. But the Bible says that the Word will be unfathomable without faith, but with faith the secrets will be unlocked. Just like I could understand the Koran for years, but if I don't want to believe it... I won't understand how it moves others in their faith for it. I really can't answer that question, though.

Ok. A question, though: are those thrown into the Lake of Fire let out eventually, or do they remain there to burn for all eternity? If the latter, what is the justification for this?

Neither. That's why I said it was a mythological perception of hell. They burn up and they die, they cease to exist. To torture them is unjust. The logic is, they do not want to believe in Him... so He shall no longer believe in them. Thus they die. Mind you, that doesn't mean they don't acknowledge His existance... merely that they deny His sovernty. They do not want what He has to offer. So he gives them what they want, which is the only thing He never promised those who follow Him. Death. Satan, the daemons, those humans who fought against God and survived... all perish. Their souls are consumed by the fire, their bodies, and they are no more.

As for Pascal... you're right, I'm wrong. Not much for that stuff anyway. Math = confusing.



Next post:

Two questions:

1) Where did Satan come from, then?

2) If God really wants people to freely choose whether to sin or not, why does he punish sinners so severely? Wouldn't a truly free choice require that no external pressure is applied to choose either one?

1) Satan is a fallen angel. The names Lucifer and Satan are interchangable. He wanted to be greater than God and to force people to worship God. Much like what you say God should do. Force people to recognize God's existance. However, to force that is to take away humanity's free will. So... Lucifer said to God, "I'll go down there and bend them to Your will in Your name." But he was being deceptive, he wanted the humans to recognize him. God saw this and cast him and his followers (a third of the angels) to "hell". Which is just out of heaven. More or less, earth is the only place for them to go. That's in, I believe, Psalms... and some of the Minor Prophets (I forget their names).

2) There is no punishment in this life. People do what they want to do and that's that. God doesn't cast lightning on them and smite them for being evil. His judgement is in the life to come. So He lets us do as we will. The reason it wasn't so in the Law's time is because God was working among His people. He was solely for them. No other, hence the separate between Jew and Gentile. As for no external pressure, well, free choice allows me to follow my conscience or my sin nature. The internal pressures on both sides. God will give me the opportunities to do the right thing, provide me with situations... and Satan shall provide me with situations to do the wrong thing. It's my choice to decide based upon my inner mind.

And yet if humans have free will, couldn't they just as well choose to resist Satan?

But isn't the whole point of Christianity that humanity is incapable of not sinning? If it's impossible to teach humanity "obedience", then why try?


I don't mean to make it seem like it's a one-sided battle. Many people live nearly perfect lives. Abstinant until marriage, never do drugs, never lie, curse, steal, so forth. Many people have those qualities. Resisting Satan is as possible as denying God. Though it is harder, as to believe in something is harder to do than to go with one's urges.

And no, humanity is incapable of not sinning. We are "born into sin". We must acquire salvation. However, it's not impossible to be obedient. No one is perfectly obedient to anything. God realizes this, and that is why He gives us the choice of salvation. So that we have His grace. He doesn't make it hard on us anymore. He lets us do as we will. If we try to be obedient and we slip up, He forgives us. He would prefer we do not sin, just as a father prefers his son to listen to him. But does the father disown a child that accidentally messes up once? No. And God's love is more infinite. God will not disown a child that disowns Him, God will still love the child and forgive him the second the child wishes to be forgiven (the Prodigal Son parable mentioned earlier).

So, hang on... God wants us to choose to obey him of our own free will, but at the same time, he allows Satan to "assault our free will"? How does that work? Surely, if he was so concerned about people choosing freely, he would not interfere himself, but he would prevent Satan from doing so as well.

And would I be right in concluding from this that you don't believe God can know what Satan is doing or planning?

Well, perhaps I should elaborate, God will interject if we let Him, as well. If I ask for God's help and truly need it, God will give it to me. I ask God for the words to say to help explain things (such as now) and He gives me what I should say. I'm not as well learned as I would like to be, and my mind is forgetful... however, I lean on God and He helps me. As I said, God will give us the chances to do good in our lives (help a person in need, for example) and Satan will give us the chance to do evil (steal a wallet when someone isn't looking). He gives both Christians and non-Christians these chances, as does Satan. Personal morality comes into play. If you're Christian, however, then you can ask for God to help in such situations. And God will answer. I have the free will to ask God for help, just as I have the free will to envoke Satan's help. The truth is, man has good and evil in him (conscience and sin nature). Whichever he leans towards is the one that prevails. If you are a good man, chances are that the opportunity for doing much evil is relatively low as you avoid those situations naturally. If you are an evil man, then you'll get the chance to be evil often. We decide which side the scales tip.

As for Satan's plan. No, God knows it. I know it. Satan has his own bible on it. His plan is to "steal, kill, and destroy". However, I don't think God knows quite every inkling Satan has planned for each person. He can't say that Satan will make a man fall with each passing temptation. Nor does Satan know if a man will rise above such temptations. If Satan knew, then he would have never tempted Jesus in the desert. -shrugs- It's just a battle that is waged in our hearts. We make the decisions personally, regardless the outside forces at work.

By the way I am no longer participating in this thread. I think the idea was fundamentally flawed, and thus the thread pointless. Thank you to all the people who participated civilly.It's bad form to edit the content out of a post after people have responded to it. What would be better would be to add in disclamer following an "EDIT" label. You could even make the text bold, red, and/or huge.

Anybody with me on this?

I hope so.


Well, I'd believe in a being capable of appearing in front of me and claiming to be God. I would certainly consider that it might be God.
I'd call bullshit, and I believe in God (sort of).

To combine... the first post, then the newest post:



The innocent do not die. It was a lamb that was slaughtered as a sacrifice (something done in many ancient cultures). Jesus is the only innocent person that died for the guilty man's sins. And that was for all of our sins. He didn't have to, he chose to.

"Man was forced to sacrifice innocent creatures to pay for his sin." Your words, not mine. Why does justice entail that innocent creatures must die to pay for the sins of others? If sins require sacrifices to make up for them, why not require sacrifices on the part of the guilty?

Anyway, God wants us to stop sinning. However, He will forgive us for sinning if we ask it of Him. As for making stuff simple. Who learns if there is no hardship? Certainly that seems easier and better, but is that not just human's lazy logic speaking? One must consider that each action has consequences.

He apparently doesn't want humans to stop sinning enough to actually make it possible. It's like saying "yeah, I really really want you to climb up that 100-metre-high, teflon-coated wall... but I refuse to provide you with a ladder or anything else you could use to actually make it to the top, so none of you can make it by yourselves. Oh, and by the way, since I really love you, I'm willing to forgive you and not punish you for failing to reach the top, as long as you ask me nicely." It would be one thing for God to want us not to sin if this were actually possible, but apparently, it's not.

I don't like expressing my more "fundementalist" opinions because those of other faiths tend to hate me for them, however I will... on the basis that I do not intend to argue. I believe they are daemonic "gods". The Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Aztecs, and Egyptians all believed in their own gods. Why believe in something without proof? Daemons can provide "miraculous" proof of their "godhood". Because of this, people flock to them. It could be argued that Yahweh, too, is a daemon. However, I don't believe that because I'm Christian. Furthermore, that does not mean the worshippers are evil... merely misguided. To not be for is to be against. If you don't believe in God, then Satan has you. Regardless of your faith in your other god. It's a harsh viewpoint, but many other religions will say the same.

You know, I'm glad you don't want to argue this, because I find it highly offensive, and I consider most religions to be silly. And I find the argument that "my religion is different because... well... I believe in it" to be even sillier, since every other religion can make precisely the same argument.

No. The Bible never once says to rape, pillage, and plunder. The people the Israelites killed were people that were specifically against God. Canaanites, Baalites, Philistines, and so forth all had agendas against the Israelites. Thus God told His people to wipe them out and destroy their religious alters, idols, and so forth. Not to rape the women, take their money, and burn the towns. Just... destroy everything. When the Israelites would fail and take money or idols, God would punish the Israelites and allow them into slavery or something else. In today's world, killing the women and children may seem harsh... but in their world, those women and children were just as agains the Israelites as the men and would fight tooth and nail. Either way they would have died. You can't view it with modern "morality" where women are gentle.

So every last man, woman, and child was implacably against God? Not one of them could be shown the error of their ways? Not even the young children, who could potentially be raised by the Israelites to believe in God?

And how was it just for God to punish the Israelites because some of them strayed?

As to those that did Crusades and what not. They were not under the dictum of God, but under the dictum of the Pope or their King in order to prevent civil war. Using God's name just inspired the knightly faith, but that doesn't mean it was in God's name and that God sanctified it.

If God's name was used to justify it, then it was in God's name. This is a pretty basic matter of definition. God may not have approved of it, but that's another matter (and if so, he really should have made this clear, lest his loyal followers be led astray).

Reality is perception. For you, God will not exist. You will not see what He does, nor hear His voice, nor anything else. Ultimately, God does exist... if not to you. Likewise, I believe God exists. Therefore I see unexplainable things and believe they are God, and I hear Him talk to me, and I have an explanation. It's what you open your mind to that will come true. That's why you have to decide for yourself. Fact and fiction are up the the mind of the man deciding, but the truth comes out in the end. I can't really argue existance because of that reason. If you don't believe in God, then God will not exist for you. If you don't want to believe in God, then God will not exist for you.

And does the same apply to Satan?

And if I believe, with all my heart, in the gods of Ancient Greece... do they become real?

According to my faith, yes. Even to practice such things in an orderly fashion. I don't see why it wouldn't be the right thing to do. Of course, once again, that is based on my faith. My logic I already explained. It's in the Bible, so it must be true.

Just checking to see that I'd understood you correctly.

Then he doesn't want God to exist. -shrugs- I can't say what will happen to him. But the Bible says that the Word will be unfathomable without faith, but with faith the secrets will be unlocked. Just like I could understand the Koran for years, but if I don't want to believe it... I won't understand how it moves others in their faith for it. I really can't answer that question, though.

Fair enough.

Neither. That's why I said it was a mythological perception of hell. They burn up and they die, they cease to exist. To torture them is unjust. The logic is, they do not want to believe in Him... so He shall no longer believe in them. Thus they die. Mind you, that doesn't mean they don't acknowledge His existance... merely that they deny His sovernty. They do not want what He has to offer. So he gives them what they want, which is the only thing He never promised those who follow Him. Death. Satan, the daemons, those humans who fought against God and survived... all perish. Their souls are consumed by the fire, their bodies, and they are no more.

I see. Seems rather extreme, but better than leaving them to burn for eternity, I suppose.

Nonetheless, if God really does love all of humanity... why not give them what they want (i.e. to be away from God) and put them somewhere separate from him? Still a punishment compared to what they could have otherwise, and I fail to see what purpose killing them has.

1) Satan is a fallen angel. The names Lucifer and Satan are interchangable. He wanted to be greater than God and to force people to worship God. Much like what you say God should do. Force people to recognize God's existance. However, to force that is to take away humanity's free will. So... Lucifer said to God, "I'll go down there and bend them to Your will in Your name." But he was being deceptive, he wanted the humans to recognize him. God saw this and cast him and his followers (a third of the angels) to "hell". Which is just out of heaven. More or less, earth is the only place for them to go. That's in, I believe, Psalms... and some of the Minor Prophets (I forget their names).

So, presumably, God made Satan, who had the capability for evil from the beginning (since he introduced it to others, and presumably didn't get it from anywhere else). Was he unaware of Lucifer's nature, or did he know and go ahead anyway?

2) There is no punishment in this life. People do what they want to do and that's that. God doesn't cast lightning on them and smite them for being evil. His judgement is in the life to come. So He lets us do as we will. The reason it wasn't so in the Law's time is because God was working among His people. He was solely for them. No other, hence the separate between Jew and Gentile. As for no external pressure, well, free choice allows me to follow my conscience or my sin nature. The internal pressures on both sides. God will give me the opportunities to do the right thing, provide me with situations... and Satan shall provide me with situations to do the wrong thing. It's my choice to decide based upon my inner mind.

And yet you're told that, once you die, your fate will depend on the path you picked. If you served God, you will be rewarded; if not, you will be punished. How is this any more free than presenting someone with two options, and saying you want them to freely choose one, and then adding "Oh, by the way, if you pick Option B, I'll kill you"?

I don't mean to make it seem like it's a one-sided battle. Many people live nearly perfect lives. Abstinant until marriage, never do drugs, never lie, curse, steal, so forth. Many people have those qualities. Resisting Satan is as possible as denying God. Though it is harder, as to believe in something is harder to do than to go with one's urges.

And no, humanity is incapable of not sinning. We are "born into sin". We must acquire salvation. However, it's not impossible to be obedient. No one is perfectly obedient to anything. God realizes this, and that is why He gives us the choice of salvation. So that we have His grace. He doesn't make it hard on us anymore. He lets us do as we will. If we try to be obedient and we slip up, He forgives us. He would prefer we do not sin, just as a father prefers his son to listen to him. But does the father disown a child that accidentally messes up once? No. And God's love is more infinite. God will not disown a child that disowns Him, God will still love the child and forgive him the second the child wishes to be forgiven (the Prodigal Son parable mentioned earlier).

Well, perhaps I should elaborate, God will interject if we let Him, as well. If I ask for God's help and truly need it, God will give it to me. I ask God for the words to say to help explain things (such as now) and He gives me what I should say. I'm not as well learned as I would like to be, and my mind is forgetful... however, I lean on God and He helps me. As I said, God will give us the chances to do good in our lives (help a person in need, for example) and Satan will give us the chance to do evil (steal a wallet when someone isn't looking). He gives both Christians and non-Christians these chances, as does Satan. Personal morality comes into play. If you're Christian, however, then you can ask for God to help in such situations. And God will answer. I have the free will to ask God for help, just as I have the free will to envoke Satan's help. The truth is, man has good and evil in him (conscience and sin nature). Whichever he leans towards is the one that prevails. If you are a good man, chances are that the opportunity for doing much evil is relatively low as you avoid those situations naturally. If you are an evil man, then you'll get the chance to be evil often. We decide which side the scales tip.

As for Satan's plan. No, God knows it. I know it. Satan has his own bible on it. His plan is to "steal, kill, and destroy". However, I don't think God knows quite every inkling Satan has planned for each person. He can't say that Satan will make a man fall with each passing temptation. Nor does Satan know if a man will rise above such temptations. If Satan knew, then he would have never tempted Jesus in the desert. -shrugs- It's just a battle that is waged in our hearts. We make the decisions personally, regardless the outside forces at work.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

Another question: I presume you believe in an objective moral code. Where do you believe it comes from? Is it simply "whatever God wants", or is even God unable to change it?

"Man was forced to sacrifice innocent creatures to pay for his sin." Your words, not mine. Why does justice entail that innocent creatures must die to pay for the sins of others? If sins require sacrifices to make up for them, why not require sacrifices on the part of the guilty?

I did say that. I'm sorry, I'd misunderstood and thought you thought I was speaking of people being killed in place of the guilty. Anyway, the logic is common in ancient religions. The sacrifice was supposed to "appease" the god and bring about his favor. In Christianity, the explanation is that when one sins one loses one's innocence. The only way one could regain it is to sacrifice something of innocence on his behalf. Since it was a creature of his livestock, there was no real loss to anyone other than the man. It was the man's property, and so it was his loss. The sheep or bull was a burnt offering, and most likely would have been slaughtered anyway. It's akin to us slaughtering them for hamburgers, except they didn't eat the creature.

He apparently doesn't want humans to stop sinning enough to actually make it possible. It's like saying "yeah, I really really want you to climb up that 100-metre-high, teflon-coated wall... but I refuse to provide you with a ladder or anything else you could use to actually make it to the top, so none of you can make it by yourselves. Oh, and by the way, since I really love you, I'm willing to forgive you and not punish you for failing to reach the top, as long as you ask me nicely." It would be one thing for God to want us not to sin if this were actually possible, but apparently, it's not.

It is possible, though not in this life. In the next life we will be, once again, without sin nature. He gives us the choice as to whether or not we want to live with or without sin nature in the next life. That we make the commitment to Him is to be promised a sin-free eternity. So, while he may not be giving you a ladder or something to make the climb... if you wait a while, an elevator will be built and you won't have to do anything to get to the top but step in.

You know, I'm glad you don't want to argue this, because I find it highly offensive, and I consider most religions to be silly. And I find the argument that "my religion is different because... well... I believe in it" to be even sillier, since every other religion can make precisely the same argument.

I know it's a silly argument, and I know it's very presumptuous to argue. A general reference is merely that, if you don't believe then you don't see why others believe. Personally, I wish I could provide some better evidence for my claim, but in saying I believe in God I say that there are no other true gods. Though, in the defense of some other religions, they aren't all "daemonic". Buddhism, for example, is not (in my mind). It's people trying to attain a similar perfection through a different set of moral codes, Buddha was human. For the most part, my belief that other gods are daemons applies to older religions such as the Roman pantheon, or the Greek pantheon.

If God's name was used to justify it, then it was in God's name. This is a pretty basic matter of definition. God may not have approved of it, but that's another matter (and if so, he really should have made this clear, lest his loyal followers be led astray).

A given point, I wasn't trying to say it's not in God's name. But that God didn't necessarily approve. As for making that clear, that's slightly hard to discern whether or not He did or didn't. The religious leaders at the time said that's God's will, and perhaps they believed it. If you believe something so fervently that you're going to invade another place for it, chances are listening to that "small, still voice" that is God is unlikely. God generally doesn't make Himself known with lightning and a huge voice in the clouds, so who's to say He didn't try? But, of course, within the allowance of free will, if a person really wants to go to war, God won't stop it. If, perhaps, the other side were to pray to God then there might have been different results. But they were Muslim, so... I dunno.

And does the same apply to Satan?

And if I believe, with all my heart, in the gods of Ancient Greece... do they become real?

Certainly, I know many Christians that accept God, but say Satan is not real. I don't understand their logic, but they believe it. I suppose it's easier to pretend a war's not being waged than to fight in it.

I firmly believe they were/are real. I've also known people that still worship the Egyptian gods and firmly believe in their existance, so yes. If you wish to perceive them as real... then they will become real, if only to you. It's like a child and magic or santa. Santa is real to the child, there's no question in his mind that he is. Santa comes down the chimney, eats cookies, drinks milk, and has reindeer and elves. This is all impossible, we know this. But that doesn't stop the kid, in the middle of the night, explaining the loud thump on Christmas Eve as being santa, when it was merely the wood shifting in the house.

A different concept, however, is that Satan is out to "steal, kill, and destroy" and to steal you from God... if you believe in something, he will create it so that you idolize and worship it. In that way, you do not believe in God.

So, presumably, God made Satan, who had the capability for evil from the beginning (since he introduced it to others, and presumably didn't get it from anywhere else). Was he unaware of Lucifer's nature, or did he know and go ahead anyway?

Every being with intelligence is capable of evil. Angels have free will, just as humans do. Angels, however, do not have sin nature, but they know the concept of sin. It was an unnatural act for Lucifer to sin against God. God made Lucifer, Lucifer made himself Satan. It's like blaming the father because the son is a serial killer. It's hard to really explain whether or not God was aware. See, Lucifer was second to God, and the angel of light. The angels had never sinned before Lucifer, so why would God have expected Lucifer to? He, perhaps, noted Lucifer's jealousy... but why should God have destroyed Lucifer? Is that any more right than me killing you because you like my shirt? Only after Lucifer's act of defiance was anything to be done, and that's why Lucifer was cast out. I don't know much more about the story and can't really guess much more. I don't know if the Bible really explains it clearer, I haven't really looked much into that.

And yet you're told that, once you die, your fate will depend on the path you picked. If you served God, you will be rewarded; if not, you will be punished. How is this any more free than presenting someone with two options, and saying you want them to freely choose one, and then adding "Oh, by the way, if you pick Option B, I'll kill you"?

People have 1000 years to live without God at all, to do what they want. Why would God reward a man who doesn't want Him? Rewarding those that go to their Father makes since. If you disown God after seeing His face, He will disown you. I don't see how that doesn't make sense. If you disown your father and stop talking to him, should he not disown you? If he did nothing to provoke it, but you said to him, "You are not a part of my life, you didn't father me, I want nothing to do with you." He would be sad but he would have no choice but to have nothing to do with you. That's what you want, is it not? Regardless the consequences. I'm pretty sure God's not going to say, "Believe in me or die." And, beyond that, if you're given God face to face, and He says, "Believe in me." Would you not?

Okay, different viewpoint, I just thought of it this way... During the time in which the Millennial Kingdom is about, there are no other gods. There is God, there is Satan. You have two choices, good or evil. There will be little need for deception, as evil knows good and good, evil. No pretenses, nothing. It's not like you say, "I'm Muslim... that's why I don't want you, God." It's more like, "I believe Satan shall overthrow you, that's why I don't want you." Remember, the Millennial Kingdom shall have no other religions save Christianity (both the good and evil aspects). So... there's probably a different level of mental understanding. It's a world quite unlike the one we know now.

Another question: I presume you believe in an objective moral code. Where do you believe it comes from? Is it simply "whatever God wants", or is even God unable to change it?

I believe it comes from the Bible. God cannot change it. God wrote it in His Word and said, "This is the Truth." To change it is to make it a lie, and to become fallible. So, not "whatever God wants", but unchanging. There were different times in history where it changed, but there was never once a declaration (until the New Testament) as to the future on this world. The Law spoke of prophesies, but they never mentioned in exactence the occurance, so the Law could change. God never said the Law was permanent. But the Epistles and Revelations talk of the future and thus cement it. That is what will occur. However, I note that the laws of the system are vague. So, perhaps, after this world, things will change. But they only change when humanity changes. The Bible is for this life, and that is why the next life (Millennial Kingdom and Everlasting Paradise) are so vague... they will have a different society, one that is sin free... so I can't say how that'll be.

I did say that. I'm sorry, I'd misunderstood and thought you thought I was speaking of people being killed in place of the guilty. Anyway, the logic is common in ancient religions. The sacrifice was supposed to "appease" the god and bring about his favor. In Christianity, the explanation is that when one sins one loses one's innocence. The only way one could regain it is to sacrifice something of innocence on his behalf. Since it was a creature of his livestock, there was no real loss to anyone other than the man. It was the man's property, and so it was his loss. The sheep or bull was a burnt offering, and most likely would have been slaughtered anyway. It's akin to us slaughtering them for hamburgers, except they didn't eat the creature.

So why is "innocence" the important thing? You still haven't explained how killing something innocent removes the guilt of another; if anything, I'd say it makes them even more guilty. And saying "it's common in ancient religions" doesn't cut it, because Christianity is supposed to be the One True Faith (tm), and it can't justify nonsense by saying "well, all the other guys do it too!"

It is possible, though not in this life. In the next life we will be, once again, without sin nature. He gives us the choice as to whether or not we want to live with or without sin nature in the next life. That we make the commitment to Him is to be promised a sin-free eternity. So, while he may not be giving you a ladder or something to make the climb... if you wait a while, an elevator will be built and you won't have to do anything to get to the top but step in.

So why bother with the whole charade of people trying and failing in the first place? Why not make it possible from the beginning? It need not be easy, but why set a deliberately unattainable goal for Round 1?

I know it's a silly argument, and I know it's very presumptuous to argue. A general reference is merely that, if you don't believe then you don't see why others believe. Personally, I wish I could provide some better evidence for my claim, but in saying I believe in God I say that there are no other true gods. Though, in the defense of some other religions, they aren't all "daemonic". Buddhism, for example, is not (in my mind). It's people trying to attain a similar perfection through a different set of moral codes, Buddha was human. For the most part, my belief that other gods are daemons applies to older religions such as the Roman pantheon, or the Greek pantheon.

I'm not sure if it's good or bad that you recognise how silly your argument is. Good, because you're being honest with yourself... or bad, because you realise it's silly and you still believe in it.

A given point, I wasn't trying to say it's not in God's name. But that God didn't necessarily approve. As for making that clear, that's slightly hard to discern whether or not He did or didn't. The religious leaders at the time said that's God's will, and perhaps they believed it. If you believe something so fervently that you're going to invade another place for it, chances are listening to that "small, still voice" that is God is unlikely. God generally doesn't make Himself known with lightning and a huge voice in the clouds, so who's to say He didn't try? But, of course, within the allowance of free will, if a person really wants to go to war, God won't stop it. If, perhaps, the other side were to pray to God then there might have been different results. But they were Muslim, so... I dunno.

So, because they were Msulims, God would not grant their perfectly reasonable request to "stop those guys from killing us"? Is he really so hung up on the issue of believing in him that he's wiling to let people die for it?

Certainly, I know many Christians that accept God, but say Satan is not real. I don't understand their logic, but they believe it. I suppose it's easier to pretend a war's not being waged than to fight in it.

So you do believe that there's a difference between what you want to be true and what is true.

I firmly believe they were/are real. I've also known people that still worship the Egyptian gods and firmly believe in their existance, so yes. If you wish to perceive them as real... then they will become real, if only to you. It's like a child and magic or santa. Santa is real to the child, there's no question in his mind that he is. Santa comes down the chimney, eats cookies, drinks milk, and has reindeer and elves. This is all impossible, we know this. But that doesn't stop the kid, in the middle of the night, explaining the loud thump on Christmas Eve as being santa, when it was merely the wood shifting in the house.

A different concept, however, is that Satan is out to "steal, kill, and destroy" and to steal you from God... if you believe in something, he will create it so that you idolize and worship it. In that way, you do not believe in God.

Clarify this, please. Are you saying that Satan seeks to turn any belief into a kind of religion?

Every being with intelligence is capable of evil. Angels have free will, just as humans do. Angels, however, do not have sin nature, but they know the concept of sin. It was an unnatural act for Lucifer to sin against God. God made Lucifer, Lucifer made himself Satan. It's like blaming the father because the son is a serial killer. It's hard to really explain whether or not God was aware. See, Lucifer was second to God, and the angel of light. The angels had never sinned before Lucifer, so why would God have expected Lucifer to? He, perhaps, noted Lucifer's jealousy... but why should God have destroyed Lucifer? Is that any more right than me killing you because you like my shirt? Only after Lucifer's act of defiance was anything to be done, and that's why Lucifer was cast out. I don't know much more about the story and can't really guess much more. I don't know if the Bible really explains it clearer, I haven't really looked much into that.

If the father created the son out of nothing in every single detail, including every aspect of his personality and environment, and the son still turned out a serial killer... yes, I'd blame the father.

People have 1000 years to live without God at all, to do what they want. Why would God reward a man who doesn't want Him? Rewarding those that go to their Father makes since. If you disown God after seeing His face, He will disown you. I don't see how that doesn't make sense.

It does make sense. But not if you hold free will to be more important than producing a desired outcome. Society punishes those who break the law, because we don't want people doing that. This violates free will, in that it restricts people's actions, but is it wrong? I don't think so, but if God does not believe in intervening to prevent people from sinning, he apparently does.

Anyway, the point is that if God really does want people to worship him, or not, totally of their own choice, he can't reward the one and punish the other.

If you disown your father and stop talking to him, should he not disown you? If he did nothing to provoke it, but you said to him, "You are not a part of my life, you didn't father me, I want nothing to do with you." He would be sad but he would have no choice but to have nothing to do with you. That's what you want, is it not? Regardless the consequences. I'm pretty sure God's not going to say, "Believe in me or die." And, beyond that, if you're given God face to face, and He says, "Believe in me." Would you not?

If God were right there in front of me? Absolutely. I've just never seen any reason to think any kind of God exists at all.

Okay, different viewpoint, I just thought of it this way... During the time in which the Millennial Kingdom is about, there are no other gods. There is God, there is Satan. You have two choices, good or evil. There will be little need for deception, as evil knows good and good, evil. No pretenses, nothing. It's not like you say, "I'm Muslim... that's why I don't want you, God." It's more like, "I believe Satan shall overthrow you, that's why I don't want you." Remember, the Millennial Kingdom shall have no other religions save Christianity (both the good and evil aspects). So... there's probably a different level of mental understanding. It's a world quite unlike the one we know now.

Ok.

I believe it comes from the Bible. God cannot change it. God wrote it in His Word and said, "This is the Truth." To change it is to make it a lie, and to become fallible. So, not "whatever God wants", but unchanging. There were different times in history where it changed, but there was never once a declaration (until the New Testament) as to the future on this world. The Law spoke of prophesies, but they never mentioned in exactence the occurance, so the Law could change. God never said the Law was permanent. But the Epistles and Revelations talk of the future and thus cement it. That is what will occur. However, I note that the laws of the system are vague. So, perhaps, after this world, things will change. But they only change when humanity changes. The Bible is for this life, and that is why the next life (Millennial Kingdom and Everlasting Paradise) are so vague... they will have a different society, one that is sin free... so I can't say how that'll be.

So it comes from the Bible. Right. Where did it come from to be put in the Bible?

And are you ever going to answer this?

"So every last man, woman, and child was implacably against God? Not one of them could be shown the error of their ways? Not even the young children, who could potentially be raised by the Israelites to believe in God?

And how was it just for God to punish the Israelites because some of them strayed?"

So why is "innocence" the important thing? You still haven't explained how killing something innocent removes the guilt of another; if anything, I'd say it makes them even more guilty. And saying "it's common in ancient religions" doesn't cut it, because Christianity is supposed to be the One True Faith (tm), and it can't justify nonsense by saying "well, all the other guys do it too!"

I'm saying that sacrifice was merely a concept of life. I can't explain how, in a scientific fashion, killing an innocent sheep removes the guilt of another person. It's akin, however, to you killing your dog. You've raised the creature from birth, and you have to kill it. Chances are, you don't want to repeat such an occurance. It's the feeling of loss, the feeling of sorrow. It makes you wish you never had done whatever sin it was because you have to kill something you love. That, I believe, is the point. Modern morality says that killing creatures is wrong, regardless the reason (though we happily eat steak). However, there was a different viewpoint at the time. Sacrificing a creature was not an alien concept, that's why it's important to understand that yeah, everyone else did it too. It's like sticking someone from Feudal Age Europe in America. They would be aghast that we wash our hands, take showers, and so forth... likewise we would be disgusted that a bath once or twice a year was all they wanted. You must understand the history of the matter before you can judge the matter. The Jews were a nomadic people, they raised sheep and bull. They sacrificed them. It was just what it was. The Law said to do so, and so they did. The Law said that was the only way to purge guilt, was to lose something innocent that you raised. And so they did. It makes no much sense to us, now. Because we don't live in the same world.

So why bother with the whole charade of people trying and failing in the first place? Why not make it possible from the beginning? It need not be easy, but why set a deliberately unattainable goal for Round 1?

The goal isn't to be perfect. The goal is to get as perfect as possible. God knows we can't be perfect. I've already been through that. We was to be Christ-like, yes. That is, to try to emulate him. If we don't... no one's going to go crazy over it. Those who don't know God aren't judged by "perfection" but by how good they were. Goodness doesn't mean doing everything perfect. It means that, regardless your little quirks that could be potentially wrong, you still are a good person. If you know God but don't want Him, then He will not want you. If you accept Jesus as your saviour. Then you don't have to be anywhere near perfect. It's good to be a good person. But there's no necessity to trying to be perfect.

I'm not sure if it's good or bad that you recognise how silly your argument is. Good, because you're being honest with yourself... or bad, because you realise it's silly and you still believe in it.

It's just as silly an argument as telling me, "The universe was compacted into a marble and suddenly it exploded. From that... everything was created, humans were eventually made, and somehow they became intelligent and we can't scientifically explain what makes humans so different from every other creature in existance." However, that's accepted by many, many people in this world. Telling me that is just as slanderous to my religion as me telling an Ancient Egyptian that his gods are daemons. Yet, I find more people telling me I'm wrong than I find myself telling the Romans they're wrong. I recognize the silliness on all sides of the argument. Everyone will have an explanation for their belief. Someone wants to believe that two little nodes or whatever accidentally bumped into each other after a long, long time of not bumping into each other and that's a "scientific" rationalization that accounts for everything. My religious rationalization for the "miracles" that occurred in ancient times is daemon is just about as far-fetched... considering my understanding of the matters. You find me the smallest particle of matter, and I'll show you a daemon or an angel. I've at least seen what I believe exists. You can't tell me you've seen the smallest particle of matter.

So, because they were Msulims, God would not grant their perfectly reasonable request to "stop those guys from killing us"? Is he really so hung up on the issue of believing in him that he's wiling to let people die for it?

If you were standing there, and someone fell down, but they said, "I don't want your help, you're dirty. I want his help." And pointed at someone completely different, would you help them? Or, if they said, "I hate you, I wish you would die." Would you try to help them? That's what the Muslims were like. They detested Christians and Jews. That's why God didn't help them. They prayed to Allah, sure, but their prayer was to murder Christians. That's like, "I'm going to help them murder my children." God didn't help people who were His enemy. Regardless of whether or not the Christians were doing the will of God, the Muslims were actively trying to destroy God. Don't get the misconception that the Muslims were helplessly being slaughtered. They gave far worse than they got. They took the Holy Land from the Jews and the Christians went to get it back. That was the Crusades, regardless ulterior motives, they wanted the Holy Land. The Muslims fought for it as fiercely as the Christians.

So you do believe that there's a difference between what you want to be true and what is true.

Certainly, but you can't expect to convince someone what they don't want.

Clarify this, please. Are you saying that Satan seeks to turn any belief into a kind of religion?

Not a religion specifically, but as something to keep someone off of God. If your beliefs are religious in nature, then he will certainly provide you justification for your beliefs. If your beliefs are scientific, then you will get that justification. Perhaps not a "religion" but a uhm... I dunno, mode of belief.

If the father created the son out of nothing in every single detail, including every aspect of his personality and environment, and the son still turned out a serial killer... yes, I'd blame the father.

God no more created Lucifer's personality than your father did yours. Certain traits, yes, but you develop your personality based on the situations that occurred around you, how your reacted, and so forth. Self-reflection... everything. Lucifer created his own personality, not God. Beyond that, God gave Lucifer a perfect environment. An environment where there was no evil. Lucifer was the one who changed it... But I would agree, if the father had made everything out in the son then obviously the father is to blame. But that's not what happened.

It does make sense. But not if you hold free will to be more important than producing a desired outcome. Society punishes those who break the law, because we don't want people doing that. This violates free will, in that it restricts people's actions, but is it wrong? I don't think so, but if God does not believe in intervening to prevent people from sinning, he apparently does.

Anyway, the point is that if God really does want people to worship him, or not, totally of their own choice, he can't reward the one and punish the other.

The point isn't in what God wants. IT's that there's a final battle. A battle. These people have it out to kill God. So God, in complete justice, shall kill them. That's the point of the matter. They wanted to attack and kill God and His people. That's why God kills them. Not because they don't chose Him, but because they actively seek to end Him.

If God were right there in front of me? Absolutely. I've just never seen any reason to think any kind of God exists at all.


Until you want to see the proof, you will not. If God were right in front of you, you would belief in Him... but until you open your eyes to notice He is there, you won't see Him. I don't say that you should believe in Him just to see him... but to broaden your scope. Don't look at everything as "cold logic". But, of course, you have to be willing.

So it comes from the Bible. Right. Where did it come from to be put in the Bible?

And are you ever going to answer this?

"So every last man, woman, and child was implacably against God? Not one of them could be shown the error of their ways? Not even the young children, who could potentially be raised by the Israelites to believe in God?

And how was it just for God to punish the Israelites because some of them strayed?"

Yes, it was what God wanted. But God is infinite, unchanging. What He wants doesn't change on a whim like we do. God has always wanted His people to walk with Him, to be good and blameless. To love. That's all God wants. That's all He'll ever really want.

Sorry if I failed to answer that. I must have missed it. The separation isn't in what they could be taught. It's that they weren't the Israelites. They were pagans, uncircumsized and unclean. They were not God's people. God made a covenant with Abraham that his people would claim the Holy Land. And again with Moses, that they would hold the Holy Land. God's people were the Israelites. Certainly, you could capture the children and raise them as Israelites... but they weren't Israelites. They were Canaanites, Hittites, Baalites, whatever... but not the ones that made the covenant with God. And again, no you couldn't show someone how to repent and see the errors of their ways. Again, take into consideration my "silly" belief about ancient religions. The Canaanites had their gods that performed "miracles" and magic, as did other religions. Furthermore, they didn't have quite the strict moral code as the Israelites. Why, then, would they recant something if it was easier? IF they had their own proof, their own magic, and they didn't have to live a life of the Law... why would they change? Regardless situation. It didn't work like it does today. Today, we can change and no one really says anything... hell, most people don't notice. But back then... you grew up in your religion. That was all there was. You were a Canaanite, you believed in the Canaan gods. To change was unheard of.

And not all the Israelites were punished for one's infractions. There were rules and if one was caught in the wrong, he was killed. It was when the tribe as a whole, or as a most part, failed God. Then they were punished. Often the Israelites could not keep with the Law, they would simply stop... just forgive it, just not care. Find something easier. And so God would just... let them do what they wanted until they cried out for God again, at which point in time He would rescue them.

I'm saying that sacrifice was merely a concept of life. I can't explain how, in a scientific fashion, killing an innocent sheep removes the guilt of another person. It's akin, however, to you killing your dog. You've raised the creature from birth, and you have to kill it. Chances are, you don't want to repeat such an occurance. It's the feeling of loss, the feeling of sorrow. It makes you wish you never had done whatever sin it was because you have to kill something you love. That, I believe, is the point. Modern morality says that killing creatures is wrong, regardless the reason (though we happily eat steak). However, there was a different viewpoint at the time. Sacrificing a creature was not an alien concept, that's why it's important to understand that yeah, everyone else did it too. It's like sticking someone from Feudal Age Europe in America. They would be aghast that we wash our hands, take showers, and so forth... likewise we would be disgusted that a bath once or twice a year was all they wanted. You must understand the history of the matter before you can judge the matter. The Jews were a nomadic people, they raised sheep and bull. They sacrificed them. It was just what it was. The Law said to do so, and so they did. The Law said that was the only way to purge guilt, was to lose something innocent that you raised. And so they did. It makes no much sense to us, now. Because we don't live in the same world.

But if the point is that they regret it, then by making it a ritual, you defeat the purpose of it. If they do it regularly, then they'll cease to feel any regret, because it becomes a fact of life. As you say, we kill animals all the time to eat them, and we don't regret it.

The goal isn't to be perfect. The goal is to get as perfect as possible. God knows we can't be perfect. I've already been through that. We was to be Christ-like, yes. That is, to try to emulate him. If we don't... no one's going to go crazy over it. Those who don't know God aren't judged by "perfection" but by how good they were. Goodness doesn't mean doing everything perfect. It means that, regardless your little quirks that could be potentially wrong, you still are a good person. If you know God but don't want Him, then He will not want you. If you accept Jesus as your saviour. Then you don't have to be anywhere near perfect. It's good to be a good person. But there's no necessity to trying to be perfect.

All right, so if God doesn't care whether we're perfect or not, why bother ever making people so? You say God's desires don't change. Why, then, does he not care if you're perfect or not in one life, then make you so in the next?

If you were standing there, and someone fell down, but they said, "I don't want your help, you're dirty. I want his help." And pointed at someone completely different, would you help them?

They didn't hate the Christian God. They didn't think he existed. It would be more along the lines of seeing seeing someone suffering from delusions in some sort of trouble, calling for help from someone who wasn't there and not seeing you when you approached. Would you just stand by and do nothing because he couldn't see you?

Or, if they said, "I hate you, I wish you would die." Would you try to help them? That's what the Muslims were like. They detested Christians and Jews. That's why God didn't help them. They prayed to Allah, sure, but their prayer was to murder Christians. That's like, "I'm going to help them murder my children." God didn't help people who were His enemy. Regardless of whether or not the Christians were doing the will of God, the Muslims were actively trying to destroy God. Don't get the misconception that the Muslims were helplessly being slaughtered. They gave far worse than they got. They took the Holy Land from the Jews and the Christians went to get it back. That was the Crusades, regardless ulterior motives, they wanted the Holy Land. The Muslims fought for it as fiercely as the Christians.

"Actively trying to destroy God"? How can you actively try to destroy something that you don't believe exists? If I don't believe there is invisible, intangible pink dragong under my bed, am I actively trying to destroy the invisible, intangible pink dragon?

And, for that matter, why should whether or not people prayed for God's intervention matter? They were killing each other. This is obviously a bad thing. And they weren't just killing people who wanted to fight, either - plenty of civilians died as well. If you were walking down the street, and you saw a brawl going on, in which people were beign seriously injured and killed, and they were seriously injuring and killing innocent bystanders, and you had the ability to stop it with no risk to yourself... would you refuse to just because some of the people fighting didn't want you to?

Certainly, but you can't expect to convince someone what they don't want.

I'd agree with you there.

It's just as silly an argument as telling me, "The universe was compacted into a marble and suddenly it exploded. From that... everything was created, humans were eventually made, and somehow they became intelligent and we can't scientifically explain what makes humans so different from every other creature in existance." However, that's accepted by many, many people in this world. Telling me that is just as slanderous to my religion as me telling an Ancient Egyptian that his gods are daemons. Yet, I find more people telling me I'm wrong than I find myself telling the Romans they're wrong. I recognize the silliness on all sides of the argument. Everyone will have an explanation for their belief. Someone wants to believe that two little nodes or whatever accidentally bumped into each other after a long, long time of not bumping into each other and that's a "scientific" rationalization that accounts for everything. My religious rationalization for the "miracles" that occurred in ancient times is daemon is just about as far-fetched... considering my understanding of the matters. You find me the smallest particle of matter, and I'll show you a daemon or an angel. I've at least seen what I believe exists. You can't tell me you've seen the smallest particle of matter.

Not a religion specifically, but as something to keep someone off of God. If your beliefs are religious in nature, then he will certainly provide you justification for your beliefs. If your beliefs are scientific, then you will get that justification. Perhaps not a "religion" but a uhm... I dunno, mode of belief.

So you believe that anything which suggests that something other than Christianity could be true has been planted by Satan?

And the reason you find more people telling you that you're wrong than telling the Romans they're wrong is because the Roman religion does not have large numbers of people actively proclaiming it to be right. Christianity does. Therefore, people who think it's wrong are going to say so.

Well, that and the Roman religion never claimed to be the only truth. It claimed to be right, but it never said other people were wrong. That's an important distinction to make.

And no, saying "your God doesn't exist" is not at all the same as saying "your God exists, and he is evil". Which would you find more offensive: someone telling you "You're worshipping something that's not real", or someone telling you "You're worshipping Satan"?

God no more created Lucifer's personality than your father did yours. Certain traits, yes, but you develop your personality based on the situations that occurred around you, how your reacted, and so forth. Self-reflection... everything. Lucifer created his own personality, not God. Beyond that, God gave Lucifer a perfect environment. An environment where there was no evil. Lucifer was the one who changed it... But I would agree, if the father had made everything out in the son then obviously the father is to blame. But that's not what happened.

All right, so Lucifer introduced evil. Presumably he got it from somewhere. Where? Did God give it to him? If so, why? If not, where else could he get it from?

The point isn't in what God wants. IT's that there's a final battle. A battle. These people have it out to kill God. So God, in complete justice, shall kill them. That's the point of the matter. They wanted to attack and kill God and His people. That's why God kills them. Not because they don't chose Him, but because they actively seek to end Him.

And why must there be a final battle? For that matter, if God is all-powerful and loves everyone, why does he care whether people try to kill him? They can't harm him.

Until you want to see the proof, you will not. If God were right in front of you, you would belief in Him... but until you open your eyes to notice He is there, you won't see Him. I don't say that you should believe in Him just to see him... but to broaden your scope. Don't look at everything as "cold logic". But, of course, you have to be willing.

Evidently you have had experiences that lead you to believe the Christian God exists. I have not.

Yes, it was what God wanted. But God is infinite, unchanging. What He wants doesn't change on a whim like we do. God has always wanted His people to walk with Him, to be good and blameless. To love. That's all God wants. That's all He'll ever really want.

So why bother with all the other stuff in the Bible, then if that's all he wanted? Why not just say it, and be clear?

And supposing God had wanted something else: would you then consider that to be what is right and moral?

Sorry if I failed to answer that. I must have missed it. The separation isn't in what they could be taught. It's that they weren't the Israelites. They were pagans, uncircumsized and unclean. They were not God's people. God made a covenant with Abraham that his people would claim the Holy Land. And again with Moses, that they would hold the Holy Land. God's people were the Israelites. Certainly, you could capture the children and raise them as Israelites... but they weren't Israelites. They were Canaanites, Hittites, Baalites, whatever... but not the ones that made the covenant with God.

So because they weren't "God's people", they had to die? You are aware, I presume, that this is precisely what Osama bin Laden has to say about anyone who doesn't share his particular brand of Islam? Is he wrong solely because he belongs to the wrong religion?

And again, no you couldn't show someone how to repent and see the errors of their ways. Again, take into consideration my "silly" belief about ancient religions. The Canaanites had their gods that performed "miracles" and magic, as did other religions. Furthermore, they didn't have quite the strict moral code as the Israelites. Why, then, would they recant something if it was easier? IF they had their own proof, their own magic, and they didn't have to live a life of the Law... why would they change? Regardless situation. It didn't work like it does today. Today, we can change and no one really says anything... hell, most people don't notice. But back then... you grew up in your religion. That was all there was. You were a Canaanite, you believed in the Canaan gods. To change was unheard of.

So, because they had perfectly good reasons to follow their religions, and God apparently couldn't be bothered showing them that they were wrong... they had to die? How very benevolent.

And not all the Israelites were punished for one's infractions. There were rules and if one was caught in the wrong, he was killed. It was when the tribe as a whole, or as a most part, failed God. Then they were punished. Often the Israelites could not keep with the Law, they would simply stop... just forgive it, just not care. Find something easier. And so God would just... let them do what they wanted until they cried out for God again, at which point in time He would rescue them.

So what you're saying, again, is that every single Israelite turned away from God in these times. Not one remained faithful. Otherwise, by punishing the entire tribe, God is punishing innocent people.

That's why God didn't help them. They prayed to Allah, sure, but their prayer was to murder Christians. That's like, "I'm going to help them murder my children." God didn't help people who were His enemy. Regardless of whether or not the Christians were doing the will of God, the Muslims were actively trying to destroy God. Don't get the misconception that the Muslims were helplessly being slaughtered. They gave far worse than they got. They took the Holy Land from the Jews and the Christians went to get it back. That was the Crusades, regardless ulterior motives, they wanted the Holy Land. The Muslims fought for it as fiercely as the Christians.


Two things I think should be pointed out here.

1) "Allah" is not the name of a pagan god, like Zeus or Odin. "Allah" is the Arabic word for God. Even Arabic-speaking Christians use "Allah" for God. It would be like saying that someone who speaks Spanish worships a god named "Dios".

2) The Muslims did not take the Holy Land from the Jews. The Romans did. The Diaspora occurred centuries before Mohammed was born.

But if the point is that they regret it, then by making it a ritual, you defeat the purpose of it. If they do it regularly, then they'll cease to feel any regret, because it becomes a fact of life. As you say, we kill animals all the time to eat them, and we don't regret it.

There's a certain difference between our grabbing hamburgers pre-pattied and raising a cow to the proper age, killing it, and then so forth. It was regular, yes, but these were their creatures. Just as a farmer is sad when he loses his crop, a herder will be sad that he had to kill something for no gain. My comparison between our slaughtering animals and theirs is that you can't say it's wrong to kill the animals because we do too. The point is that it's theirs. They give up their possession as part of their transgression.

All right, so if God doesn't care whether we're perfect or not, why bother ever making people so? You say God's desires don't change. Why, then, does he not care if you're perfect or not in one life, then make you so in the next?

You confuse my words, perhaps by my fault. God cares that we are imperfect, just as my father would care that I don't exactly do what he wants all the time. And just like my father, God understands that I won't be perfect... so He's not going to try to force perfection from me. God desires our perfection, just as I desire perfection. And so He will give it to me in the next life. What everyone realizes in unattainable in this life shall be granted in the next. His desire never changed, we changed.

They didn't hate the Christian God. They didn't think he existed. It would be more along the lines of seeing seeing someone suffering from delusions in some sort of trouble, calling for help from someone who wasn't there and not seeing you when you approached. Would you just stand by and do nothing because he couldn't see you?

To my understanding, the Muslims thought much of my God as I would say of the Roman gods. They thought he was a daemon that led the people astray. Hence Gabriel bringing to Mohammad the word of Allah. They hated Yahweh just as the Christians hated Allah. It's the concept, even if they didn't believe in the other god. You reject my concept as foreign and want nothing of it, even its help... just as I yours. I like my spirituality, and you like yours.

"Actively trying to destroy God"? How can you actively try to destroy something that you don't believe exists? If I don't believe there is invisible, intangible pink dragong under my bed, am I actively trying to destroy the invisible, intangible pink dragon?

And, for that matter, why should whether or not people prayed for God's intervention matter? They were killing each other. This is obviously a bad thing. And they weren't just killing people who wanted to fight, either - plenty of civilians died as well. If you were walking down the street, and you saw a brawl going on, in which people were beign seriously injured and killed, and they were seriously injuring and killing innocent bystanders, and you had the ability to stop it with no risk to yourself... would you refuse to just because some of the people fighting didn't want you to?

Actively trying to destroy His notion, His concept. How do you think the Romans, the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, and so forth ended? Or why there is little record of their religions? Because wars were fought over religion. The aim was to destroy the other religion. Thereby you would gain control over the people, subjugate them, and make them yours. Nearly every war fought up to the Crusades (and even beyond them) were based on religion. So, yes, the Muslims were--likewise--trying to destroy Yahweh while the Christians were trying to destroy Allah.

Sure, all of that happened. Everyone was killing each other. By their choices, and sure many prayed and many killed innocents. But that is how war is. There's no moral justification for war, nor any religious allowance for what they would do. Certain people were bloodthirsty, and thus innocents died, were raped, their homes ransacked, pillages, and then burned... for no reason than the person's selfish notions. Am I to defend those who did things wrongly? I certainly would hope not. Nor would I ask you to defend modern soldiers of the Vietnam War for their war crimes in a war not motivated by religion. There is no excuse. However, understand that it was war. In war is death, and that is how it shall be. There's no method to stopping people who want to fight. If I were to step in between them, I would be hit in the fray. The people wanted blood, on both sides. The Christians and Jews had land down there just as the Muslims did. I don't see your logic. It was a war, there's no way to stop a war except by the two parties doing it themselves.

So you believe that anything which suggests that something other than Christianity could be true has been planted by Satan?

And the reason you find more people telling you that you're wrong than telling the Romans they're wrong is because the Roman religion does not have large numbers of people actively proclaiming it to be right. Christianity does. Therefore, people who think it's wrong are going to say so.

Well, that and the Roman religion never claimed to be the only truth. It claimed to be right, but it never said other people were wrong. That's an important distinction to make.

And no, saying "your God doesn't exist" is not at all the same as saying "your God exists, and he is evil". Which would you find more offensive: someone telling you "You're worshipping something that's not real", or someone telling you "You're worshipping Satan"?

No, not anything. Certainly science has many great things. Science leads people to believe against God. Confucious was wise, and people don't believe in God because of him. As with Buddha. Darwin wrote a book on evolution. Does that make these people and science Satanic? No. Not at all. But daemonic influences can be found anywhere--even the Christian church. It's a matter of knowing there is a war of good and evil and that the line is often times hard to discern, and other times the line is so wide that one knows which is good and which is evil, and yet other times there is a place where a person can side comfortably between good and evil. Not everything is "of Satan" but many things can be. I won't tell you what is or isn't, that isn't my place. I will tell you what I think could be.

My argument is that I don't go around saying, "Muslims worship Satan." I say, "Ancient Romans had gods that were daemons." There's a complete difference. If you find a Roman and present him my claim, he has a right to be offended. Just as I have a right to be offended when you tell me, "God doesn't exist."

That isn't true. The Roman religion perferred to absorb other faiths, making them Roman. The fact that the Israelites did not angered them. That is because the Romans wanted everything to be their religion. Having a religion exist in their domain that wasn't Roman was like a bee to a bear. It was a nuisance that could occassionally cause some pain. They did proclaim the Christians as charlatans and actively persecuted them for their faith. They ridiculed the Faith and said it was false.

I would, personally, be offended more if someone told me my God wasn't real than that I worshipped Satan. It's hard to prove to someone who doesn't believe in any part of it that I am right, whereas the person who says I worship Satan either: a) doesn't understand Christianity, or b) is nuts. Now, if a person was to say that I worship a daemon and they were not Christian, then I would understand them. Why? Because they probably have evidence of their own religion to back that up. I am not really offended by anyone nor their faiths. There's no point to it. I just understand the fickleness of everyone else and so I don't like expressing opinions that they will disagree with because they are harsh and over-bearing. They call me wrong, and I call them wrong. Nothing is solved. I would rather someone have a reason for calling my religion wrong, I already have my reason on why theirs is wrong.

All right, so Lucifer introduced evil. Presumably he got it from somewhere. Where? Did God give it to him? If so, why? If not, where else could he get it from?

That's foolishness to surmiss, no offense. God gave the angels free will, as I have stated. They had not sin nature, just as humans did not. But they could sin if they really wanted to. He got it from himself, just as you get many of your sinful habits from yourself and I mine. Is it hard to believe that one could self-create evil?

And why must there be a final battle? For that matter, if God is all-powerful and loves everyone, why does he care whether people try to kill him? They can't harm him.

There must be a final battle because evil will attempt to over-throw good. And He cares that people are trying to kill Him because that is only logical. Regardless of His all-powerfulness, I should think He ought to care. Don't assume that because it's religion it loses logic and is just hocus-pocus. If that were it, then there would be no argument between religion and science.

Evidently you have had experiences that lead you to believe the Christian God exists. I have not.

True. But I had to start somewhere, neh?

So why bother with all the other stuff in the Bible, then if that's all he wanted? Why not just say it, and be clear?

And supposing God had wanted something else: would you then consider that to be what is right and moral?

God does say that. The Bible is about love. The entire New Testament is about nothing but love. The commandments are made based on love. It is all about love.

Supposing God had wanted something else is changing the religion. I can't answer that. Suppose science pointed to the Biblical Creation as right and the Big Bang as incorrect (or whatever scientific theory you would believe). I believe in the religion because of what it entails.

So because they weren't "God's people", they had to die? You are aware, I presume, that this is precisely what Osama bin Laden has to say about anyone who doesn't share his particular brand of Islam? Is he wrong solely because he belongs to the wrong religion?

Yes and yes and no. Yes because that's what God said, therefore it had to be done. Yes, I am aware that is likely his thoughts. No, he is wrong because his ideals conflict with Islam. It's like extremist Christians grabbing guns and killing because that is the only way to make people see the errors of their ways, by bringing them to their Judgement. It's fundementally wrong.

So, because they had perfectly good reasons to follow their religions, and God apparently couldn't be bothered showing them that they were wrong... they had to die? How very benevolent.

You miss the point. We agree that a person will not believe what they do not want to believe. If they do not want to believe in God, then they will not. Regardless what miracles are performed. Now, if, in turn, they are violent about it, and they attack the Israelites because they believe in God... then what? Consider, there was no peaceful cohesion between the different tribes. Everyone hated everyone else. There were minor alliances from time to time, but as a whole it was every tribe for itself. You see the others, you attack them. What good does it do to go, "Wait, before you attack me, let me explain how your religion is wrong."? Think outside of our current era.

So what you're saying, again, is that every single Israelite turned away from God in these times. Not one remained faithful. Otherwise, by punishing the entire tribe, God is punishing innocent people.

Guilty by association. If you sit by and watch people become idolators, fornicators, and pagans and you did nothing to stop it, then are you not guilty of failing God? That's the mentality. The Law was written before the Israelites had turned from God for the first time (except, maybe, the Golden Calf). So the Israelites knew the punishment for their doings; it wasn't like they decided to change and suddenly something bad would happen. The Law spelled out everything, it told them if they did this, then that would happen. So should they be surprised? If you murder someone, you go to jail and are likely in for a very long time. If you witness the murder and do nothing to confess, they find you out, you are also guilty. It's just.



Two things I think should be pointed out here.

1) "Allah" is not the name of a pagan god, like Zeus or Odin. "Allah" is the Arabic word for God. Even Arabic-speaking Christians use "Allah" for God. It would be like saying that someone who speaks Spanish worships a god named "Dios".

2) The Muslims did not take the Holy Land from the Jews. The Romans did. The Diaspora occurred centuries before Mohammed was born.

1) Yet Allah and Yahweh are two different gods. Would it help if I started saying Yahweh to differentiate? As one is generally understood as the Islamic god, whereas Yahweh is the Christian god. I wasn't trying to imply that Islam was a pagan religion.

2) Fair enough, but my point was that it was in the Muslims hands. There had been wars between the religions all through-out history for the Holy Land, and so it was constantly up-for-grabs. Sorry for the inaccuracy.

What part of "Allah isn't the name of a pagan god" did you not get? Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is an Abrahamic faith. They trace their religion to Abraham; they worship the same god we do. True, they worship him differently, so do the Jews. So does each Christian sect. It's this knid of ignorance that causes religious strife. Please do some research to make sure you have your facts straight before you put yourself forward as a spokesman.


No, not anything. Certainly science has many great things. Science leads people to believe against God

Science has never said there is no God. That the theory of evolution does not mention God explicitly does not mean that evolution says God does not exist.

Originally posted by Gallileo

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God that has endowed us with sense, reason and logic has intended us to forego their use."

There's a certain difference between our grabbing hamburgers pre-pattied and raising a cow to the proper age, killing it, and then so forth. It was regular, yes, but these were their creatures. Just as a farmer is sad when he loses his crop, a herder will be sad that he had to kill something for no gain. My comparison between our slaughtering animals and theirs is that you can't say it's wrong to kill the animals because we do too. The point is that it's theirs. They give up their possession as part of their transgression.

Are you terribly sad when you pay your taxes? You're giving up something you've worked for, for no direct reward. You'll undoubtedly be giving up more of your income than the Israelite farmer did when he had to periodically sacrifice an animal. And while you do derive benefit from the money when it's spent by the government, the Israelites would expect to get a benefit too - their sins would be atoned for (until the next sacrifice, at least).

And no, I don't think it's wrong for us to kill animals. I don't think it was wrong for the Israelites to do so, either. What I consider wrong is that the criterion for an acceptable sacrifice was "innocence".

You confuse my words, perhaps by my fault. God cares that we are imperfect, just as my father would care that I don't exactly do what he wants all the time. And just like my father, God understands that I won't be perfect... so He's not going to try to force perfection from me. God desires our perfection, just as I desire perfection. And so He will give it to me in the next life. What everyone realizes in unattainable in this life shall be granted in the next. His desire never changed, we changed.

You're repeating yourself without answering the question. God could have made humans perfect to begin with, could he not? If he wanted humans to be perfect, why wait? Why allow some to be led astray and suffer as a result?

To my understanding, the Muslims thought much of my God as I would say of the Roman gods. They thought he was a daemon that led the people astray. Hence Gabriel bringing to Mohammad the word of Allah. They hated Yahweh just as the Christians hated Allah. It's the concept, even if they didn't believe in the other god. You reject my concept as foreign and want nothing of it, even its help... just as I yours. I like my spirituality, and you like yours.

I expect that would depend on which Muslim you asked.

Actively trying to destroy His notion, His concept. How do you think the Romans, the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, and so forth ended? Or why there is little record of their religions? Because wars were fought over religion. The aim was to destroy the other religion. Thereby you would gain control over the people, subjugate them, and make them yours. Nearly every war fought up to the Crusades (and even beyond them) were based on religion. So, yes, the Muslims were--likewise--trying to destroy Yahweh while the Christians were trying to destroy Allah.

They allowed Christians and Jews to live and worship among them - far more freely than Christian Europe did, I might add. They did not seek to stamp out Christianity.

Sure, all of that happened. Everyone was killing each other. By their choices, and sure many prayed and many killed innocents. But that is how war is. There's no moral justification for war, nor any religious allowance for what they would do. Certain people were bloodthirsty, and thus innocents died, were raped, their homes ransacked, pillages, and then burned... for no reason than the person's selfish notions. Am I to defend those who did things wrongly? I certainly would hope not. Nor would I ask you to defend modern soldiers of the Vietnam War for their war crimes in a war not motivated by religion. There is no excuse. However, understand that it was war. In war is death, and that is how it shall be. There's no method to stopping people who want to fight. If I were to step in between them, I would be hit in the fray. The people wanted blood, on both sides. The Christians and Jews had land down there just as the Muslims did. I don't see your logic. It was a war, there's no way to stop a war except by the two parties doing it themselves.

I'm talking about God. There was no danger to him from stopping the war, and it was well within his power. Why didn't he? If it was about "free will", why does the free will of those doing the killing override the lives of those being killed? Society doesn't work like that; laws against murder violate the free will of murderers, because the lives of the victims are considered more important. Is that wrong?

No, not anything. Certainly science has many great things. Science leads people to believe against God. Confucious was wise, and people don't believe in God because of him. As with Buddha. Darwin wrote a book on evolution. Does that make these people and science Satanic? No. Not at all. But daemonic influences can be found anywhere--even the Christian church. It's a matter of knowing there is a war of good and evil and that the line is often times hard to discern, and other times the line is so wide that one knows which is good and which is evil, and yet other times there is a place where a person can side comfortably between good and evil. Not everything is "of Satan" but many things can be. I won't tell you what is or isn't, that isn't my place. I will tell you what I think could be.

I see.

My argument is that I don't go around saying, "Muslims worship Satan." I say, "Ancient Romans had gods that were daemons." There's a complete difference. If you find a Roman and present him my claim, he has a right to be offended. Just as I have a right to be offended when you tell me, "God doesn't exist."

So what do you believe Msulims worship, then?

That isn't true. The Roman religion perferred to absorb other faiths, making them Roman. The fact that the Israelites did not angered them. That is because the Romans wanted everything to be their religion. Having a religion exist in their domain that wasn't Roman was like a bee to a bear. It was a nuisance that could occassionally cause some pain. They did proclaim the Christians as charlatans and actively persecuted them for their faith. They ridiculed the Faith and said it was false.

Yes, they absorbed other religions into themselves. That was my point - they said their gods were real, but they didn't say other peoples' weren't. Their beef with Christianity and Judaism was that they denied all other gods and refused to acknowledge the emperor as a god.

I would, personally, be offended more if someone told me my God wasn't real than that I worshipped Satan. It's hard to prove to someone who doesn't believe in any part of it that I am right, whereas the person who says I worship Satan either: a) doesn't understand Christianity, or b) is nuts. Now, if a person was to say that I worship a daemon and they were not Christian, then I would understand them. Why? Because they probably have evidence of their own religion to back that up. I am not really offended by anyone nor their faiths. There's no point to it. I just understand the fickleness of everyone else and so I don't like expressing opinions that they will disagree with because they are harsh and over-bearing. They call me wrong, and I call them wrong. Nothing is solved. I would rather someone have a reason for calling my religion wrong, I already have my reason on why theirs is wrong.

So, to make sure I've understood this right: you'd be less offended by someone who thought your God was evil than one who didn't believe in your God at all because it would be easier to persuade the "Your God is evil" person otherwise?

That's foolishness to surmiss, no offense. God gave the angels free will, as I have stated. They had not sin nature, just as humans did not. But they could sin if they really wanted to. He got it from himself, just as you get many of your sinful habits from yourself and I mine. Is it hard to believe that one could self-create evil?

Yout say any intelligent creature has the capacity for sin. Well, why? God made intelligence, did he not? It's his choice what capabilities come along with it. Therefore, if the angels had the capacity for evil, it's because God gave it to them. Why would he do this?

There must be a final battle because evil will attempt to over-throw good. And He cares that people are trying to kill Him because that is only logical. Regardless of His all-powerfulness, I should think He ought to care. Don't assume that because it's religion it loses logic and is just hocus-pocus. If that were it, then there would be no argument between religion and science.

God is supposed to love everyone, isn't he? Wouldn't that include the people who want him dead? And if he loves them, and they're no threat to him, why destroy them?

True. But I had to start somewhere, neh?

Maybe. Maybe you grew up with Christianity. Not knowing you, I wouldn't know.

[quote]God does say that. The Bible is about love. The entire New Testament is about nothing but love. The commandments are made based on love. It is all about love.

Leviticus is about love? the death by stoning of adulterers and homosexuals is about love?

Supposing God had wanted something else is changing the religion. I can't answer that. Suppose science pointed to the Biblical Creation as right and the Big Bang as incorrect (or whatever scientific theory you would believe). I believe in the religion because of what it entails.

If science pointed towards Biblical Creation being true, then I would most likely believe in it. It's the method that makes science worth listening to, not the results.

So: if God had said something else, you might not believe in Christianity? Why not? Suppose the Bible was the same in every detail, except there was an eleventh commandment banning red clothing. Would you consider red clothing to be evil, solely because God said he didn't like it?

Yes and yes and no. Yes because that's what God said, therefore it had to be done. Yes, I am aware that is likely his thoughts. No, he is wrong because his ideals conflict with Islam. It's like extremist Christians grabbing guns and killing because that is the only way to make people see the errors of their ways, by bringing them to their Judgement. It's fundementally wrong.

Why is it fundamentally wrong? If God said it should be done, and God is the source of all morality, then what's wrong with it?

You miss the point. We agree that a person will not believe what they do not want to believe. If they do not want to believe in God, then they will not. Regardless what miracles are performed. Now, if, in turn, they are violent about it, and they attack the Israelites because they believe in God... then what? Consider, there was no peaceful cohesion between the different tribes. Everyone hated everyone else. There were minor alliances from time to time, but as a whole it was every tribe for itself. You see the others, you attack them. What good does it do to go, "Wait, before you attack me, let me explain how your religion is wrong."? Think outside of our current era.

So it's beyond God to show incontrovertible proof of his existence? If it's not, why would he prefer to see people die than do it?

Guilty by association. If you sit by and watch people become idolators, fornicators, and pagans and you did nothing to stop it, then are you not guilty of failing God? That's the mentality. The Law was written before the Israelites had turned from God for the first time (except, maybe, the Golden Calf). So the Israelites knew the punishment for their doings; it wasn't like they decided to change and suddenly something bad would happen. The Law spelled out everything, it told them if they did this, then that would happen. So should they be surprised? If you murder someone, you go to jail and are likely in for a very long time. If you witness the murder and do nothing to confess, they find you out, you are also guilty. It's just.

Guilt by association is not just in the least. If you did not do something, and could not prevent it, you cannot be held responsible for that thing. If a gang of armed men kill someone in front of me, and I have no capacity to stop them or to summon help, do I bear responsibility for that person's death?

And, to add to what Maineiacs has said: I assume you're aware that Moses, Jesus, etc are considered prophets by Islam?

Are you terribly sad when you pay your taxes? You're giving up something you've worked for, for no direct reward. You'll undoubtedly be giving up more of your income than the Israelite farmer did when he had to periodically sacrifice an animal. And while you do derive benefit from the money when it's spent by the government, the Israelites would expect to get a benefit too - their sins would be atoned for (until the next sacrifice, at least).

And no, I don't think it's wrong for us to kill animals. I don't think it was wrong for the Israelites to do so, either. What I consider wrong is that the criterion for an acceptable sacrifice was "innocence".

All right, I understand the analogy. As for the criterion of innocence. I don't really think we'll ever come to an understanding on it. It was a pre-cursor to Jesus. Jesus was innocent and he was killed for our sins. The animals are innocent, they were killed for our sins. To me, that just is how it was. It was the decree, it showed physical repentence. It was the Law. And the Law had its consequences. IF you were to kill the person sinning, or do something to equal the sin, then the Israelites would have been wiped out and Christianity wouldn't exist. The criteria was specific, however, certain sins required a bull with others a sheep. Every sin had a specific reprecussion. Some were death to the person (if severe enough), others were physical punishment to the person, and others were animal sacrifices.

You're repeating yourself without answering the question. God could have made humans perfect to begin with, could he not? If he wanted humans to be perfect, why wait? Why allow some to be led astray and suffer as a result?

Humans were perfect to begin with. Humans chose to disobey, and so humans pay the price. You are born without sin, you sin on your own. Jesus was born and lived a sinless life. Why does He wait? I'm not really sure. There is some reason to it, but it isn't of my knowledge. But the Bible says that only He knows the time in which His Son shall return.

I expect that would depend on which Muslim you asked.

They allowed Christians and Jews to live and worship among them - far more freely than Christian Europe did, I might add. They did not seek to stamp out Christianity.

It would, today, but not back then. They thought that Christians had the message wrong and thus actively sought to stamp them out. Same with the Jews, hence the term "infidels". The Jews thought the same of the Christians and Muslims, and the Christians thought the same of the Jews and Muslims. Everyone was convinced they were right to the point of bloodshed.

No, they didn't. Don't base it off of the movies. Jerusalem changed hands 100's of times, and each time there was a slaughter of the other religions. There would be truces in which every religion would be allowed to worship and pilgram to Jerusalem, and there would be times in which the Muslims held Jerusalem and slaughtered others, and times when the Christians would do the same.

I'm talking about God. There was no danger to him from stopping the war, and it was well within his power. Why didn't he? If it was about "free will", why does the free will of those doing the killing override the lives of those being killed? Society doesn't work like that; laws against murder violate the free will of murderers, because the lives of the victims are considered more important. Is that wrong?

No, there was no danger to Him stopping the war. Just as there is no danger to Him stopping someone from murdering. But this world is not His. It is Satan's. Hence the term "authorities of this world" and the title "Prince of the Air". Satan owns this world. Humanity gave it to him when humanity sinned. God can't just sit there and make it a utopia. Humanity doesn't really want Him to. Humanity is convinced of its own superiority and thrives on greed, ambition, back-stabbing, and slander. Sure most want to do away with murder, but no one wants to do away with personal gain. Most don't care if it'll be at the expense of others. They want it, so they'll get it. That is why there is war, because people are convinced of their superiority.

And no, it's not wrong that laws are against murderers. The laws are a good thing. But they do not inhibit a person's free will. Not at all. A person can murder regardless what the law says.

So what do you believe Msulims worship, then?

An Islamic god. But I'll explain all of this at the bottom, when I respond to Maineiacs.

Yes, they absorbed other religions into themselves. That was my point - they said their gods were real, but they didn't say other peoples' weren't. Their beef with Christianity and Judaism was that they denied all other gods and refused to acknowledge the emperor as a god.

Their beef was that Christians and Jews said their gods were false, not that they didn't exist. They thought of them much what I think of them. Second, they said that no human could be a god because no human was infinite and perfect. In return, the Romans said the Christian and Jewish God was false and that the priests were charlatans. The Romans were considered to be religious politicians, and they absorbed other pagan religions because other pagan religions didn't mind adding to their pantheon. You'll find that most monotheistic religions were either destroyed or enslaved by the Romans because they would not adopt a polytheistic belief.

So, to make sure I've understood this right: you'd be less offended by someone who thought your God was evil than one who didn't believe in your God at all because it would be easier to persuade the "Your God is evil" person otherwise?

No, no. I would be less offended because he has a religious reason for his statement, backed up by proofs in his religion. To say my God does not exist without proof is just offensive. It's like someone talking crap about your mom without ever meeting her. They don't know her, so they have no right to say anything about her.

Yout say any intelligent creature has the capacity for sin. Well, why? God made intelligence, did he not? It's his choice what capabilities come along with it. Therefore, if the angels had the capacity for evil, it's because God gave it to them. Why would he do this?

Because any intelligent creature has the ability to murder, steal, lie, cheat, or commit adultery. God did not "create" intelligence. God was intelligent, God created intelligent creatures. God did not want mindless drones that did His will because they could not do anything else. He wanted creatures that wanted to be with Him. God gave the angels intelligence because he did not want them to be mindless. It was their choice to sin. You cannot fault God for someone else's choices, just like I cannot fault you for what my friend says.

God is supposed to love everyone, isn't he? Wouldn't that include the people who want him dead? And if he loves them, and they're no threat to him, why destroy them?

He does love everyone. Yes, even the ones that want him dead. And why destroy them? Because it's just. It is just to destroy a creature that attempts murder. It is just to destroy a creature that attempts to harm you and your friends. If someone tried to hurt your best friend and you knew they could not harm you, would you not stop them? And if someone was trying to kill your best friend, would you not be inclined to use deadly force. Acknowledge, at least, the principle of justice. Don't use it in some arguments and then disregard it completely in others.

Maybe. Maybe you grew up with Christianity. Not knowing you, I wouldn't know.


True. I grew up in a Catholic home and a Presbyterian home (divorced). Because the Christian God seemed to conflict with Himself so much, I decided He was obviously a sham. So I was athiest. It took a good 6 years after that before I decided otherwise, and I am neither Catholic nor Presbyterian now.

Leviticus is about love? the death by stoning of adulterers and homosexuals is about love?

That's why I was specific about the New Testament. The Old Testament is about justice. The Old Testament was for Jews, however. Not Christians. The Christian beliefs are about love. The whole New Testament is about love.

But to get technical, yes even that deals with love. Adulterers and homosexuals practiced sexual relationships outside of the Law, and defiled the concept of monogomous inter-sexual love.

If science pointed towards Biblical Creation being true, then I would most likely believe in it. It's the method that makes science worth listening to, not the results.

So: if God had said something else, you might not believe in Christianity? Why not? Suppose the Bible was the same in every detail, except there was an eleventh commandment banning red clothing. Would you consider red clothing to be evil, solely because God said he didn't like it?

Agreed, the method is important. That is, also, why I listen to science. But the theories involving creation, however, are considered "science" and point towards atheistic creation. I suppose that was a bad example, though.

It depends. If God had said something else from the beginning, then perhaps. It depends on how much it conflicts with the rest of the Bible. I have yet to find a true invalidity in the Bible due to being insequential and/or conflicting. As to that example. There would surely have to be a reason for the banning on red clothing. And then I would be more inclined to listen. However, the commandments don't apply to Christianity, they are the Law. And Christianity is not of the Law. I've stated that before. It would depend on the New Testament's stance on red clothing...

Why is it fundamentally wrong? If God said it should be done, and God is the source of all morality, then what's wrong with it?

Because it's not what the Koran says, not in literal words. Just like the Bible never says there is a Trinity, and yet people believe in one, or never says Purgatory and yet the Catholics will say there is such a thing. People find reasons to believe what they want to believe. They will find something that "says" they are right. Or something that they can twist into "saying" they are right. If the Koran explicitly said, "Murder all infidels," then I think it would be more than just small fundementalist terror groups trying to kill us.

So it's beyond God to show incontrovertible proof of his existence? If it's not, why would he prefer to see people die than do it?

Everything can be argued. Jesus healed people, walked on water, rose from the dead, and even rose others from the dead. Yet people call him a sham. People in that time called him a sham, said he dealt with daemons. God had a pillar of fire behind the wandering tribes of Israel, He changed the water to blood, cause a plague of locusts, caused the first born of every Egyptian household to die... and yet people still did not believe in Him. There were many miraculous things that God did back then and yet the other tribes didn't acknowledge His Truth. What would you expect God to do to prove Himself?

Guilt by association is not just in the least. If you did not do something, and could not prevent it, you cannot be held responsible for that thing. If a gang of armed men kill someone in front of me, and I have no capacity to stop them or to summon help, do I bear responsibility for that person's death?

How is it not just? You could have testified after the immediate act. You could have done many things to see that these armed men were caught and put in jail. The point is, I am saying, "They killed him and you did nothing." Literally, not before, nor during, not after. Someone died and you didn't do a thing. That is what it was like. The faithful sat there and watched the sinners continue without telling them it was against God. Often times I have sat, someone will light a blunt, and I will tell them, "You know there's no point in that." I will try ti dissuade them. Do I take it, stamp it out, and say, "You sinner! Repent!"? No, that will not solve anything. Nor do I expect you to try to attack and kill all of the armed assailant. But to let it idly go by is to fail the religion. That is what the Israelites did. They watched and pretended it didn't happen. That is why they were guilty by association.

What part of "Allah isn't the name of a pagan god" did you not get? Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is an Abrahamic faith. They trace their religion to Abraham; they worship the same god we do. True, they worship him differently, so do the Jews. So does each Christian sect. It's this knid of ignorance that causes religious strife. Please do some research to make sure you have your facts straight before you put yourself forward as a spokesman.
And, to add to what Maineiacs has said: I assume you're aware that Moses, Jesus, etc are considered prophets by Islam?

Honestly, Maineiacs, I don't see a need for any hostility. If you feel I am doing this wrong, then you explain the religion better rather than attack me for saying something you disagree with. Yes, I understand that Islam is an Abrahamic faith. I understand that they worship the same god in the sense that they have the same traces back to Abraham. And yes, they worship him differently, as do the Jews. And yes, Christianity worships differently based on a different sect, same with Jews and Muslims. But somehow, I don't think I'm really ignorant. I do have my facts straight. I'm pretty sure Centralis understood that my differentiation was between the two faiths and their way of worship.

Furthermore, I would like you to note that the Pharisees and Sadducees were inclined to denounce the Christian God as a false god, and to spread rumours that Jesus consorted with daemons. They claimed He was a different being entirely. Why? Because the Christian Faith was so different from the Jewish one. While I don't slander the Islamic faith, how am I to differentiate between the two (Christianity and Islam) without noting a difference between Allah and Yahweh? It would be tedious to say, each time, "God, as he pertains to Christianity" and "God, as he pertains to Islam". I would rather simply say, "Allah" as a declaration of my speaking of Islam, and "God" or "Yahweh" as my declaration to Judiasm/Christianity. Why do I lump two together? Because the Koran does not have the Bible within it, whereas the Bible has the Torah in it. Therefore, I'm pretty much lumping them based on their holy books.

Lastly, to answer my knowledge about the prophets of Moses and Jesus, and how that changed my view on who/what Muslims worship as a god. Yes, I know they think of both as prophet, my best friend is Muslim... so I know a fair amount about the religion. However, in that they consider Jesus a prophet and not the Messiah is where I must draw a line between religions. Jesus is the Christian Savior, not just some prophet. Because of this, there is a difference between the gods of the two religion. Consider: The Bible distinctly called Jesus the Son of God; the Koran denounces this. The Bible called to become saved by grace; the Koran has a completely different view on how one is accepted into its faith and how to get into heaven. These two facts alone completely contradict both religions. Therefore, I am inclined to differentiate the two gods. I believe that the Muslims worship God, yes. But they worship Him completely contradictory to the Bible, and therefore it is incorrect. They do not accept Jesus as their Savior, nor as the Son of God. Therefore it is incorrect. This is the same for the Jewish faith. Therefore, I would say that both religions worship God, but not the way God would have them worship Him. It would be like worshipping an idol because they're taking God and changing Him into what they would rather Him be.

All right, I understand the analogy. As for the criterion of innocence. I don't really think we'll ever come to an understanding on it. It was a pre-cursor to Jesus. Jesus was innocent and he was killed for our sins. The animals are innocent, they were killed for our sins. To me, that just is how it was. It was the decree, it showed physical repentence. It was the Law. And the Law had its consequences. IF you were to kill the person sinning, or do something to equal the sin, then the Israelites would have been wiped out and Christianity wouldn't exist. The criteria was specific, however, certain sins required a bull with others a sheep. Every sin had a specific reprecussion. Some were death to the person (if severe enough), others were physical punishment to the person, and others were animal sacrifices.

As you say, I doubt we'll ever agree on this... mostly because your concept of what is and is not just appears to come solely from the actions and statements of God. Mine, OTOH, does not, so I can look at what your religion says and say "I don't think that's just".

Humans were perfect to begin with. Humans chose to disobey, and so humans pay the price. You are born without sin, you sin on your own. Jesus was born and lived a sinless life. Why does He wait? I'm not really sure. There is some reason to it, but it isn't of my knowledge. But the Bible says that only He knows the time in which His Son shall return.

If humans were truly perfect to begin with, why would they disobey?

It would, today, but not back then. They thought that Christians had the message wrong and thus actively sought to stamp them out. Same with the Jews, hence the term "infidels". The Jews thought the same of the Christians and Muslims, and the Christians thought the same of the Jews and Muslims. Everyone was convinced they were right to the point of bloodshed.

No, they didn't. Don't base it off of the movies. Jerusalem changed hands 100's of times, and each time there was a slaughter of the other religions. There would be truces in which every religion would be allowed to worship and pilgram to Jerusalem, and there would be times in which the Muslims held Jerusalem and slaughtered others, and times when the Christians would do the same.

If the Muslims were so determined to stamp out Christianity, why are there still Christians in the Middle East? They are not a new phenomenon. They've been there for a very long time.

No, there was no danger to Him stopping the war. Just as there is no danger to Him stopping someone from murdering. But this world is not His. It is Satan's. Hence the term "authorities of this world" and the title "Prince of the Air". Satan owns this world. Humanity gave it to him when humanity sinned. God can't just sit there and make it a utopia. Humanity doesn't really want Him to. Humanity is convinced of its own superiority and thrives on greed, ambition, back-stabbing, and slander. Sure most want to do away with murder, but no one wants to do away with personal gain. Most don't care if it'll be at the expense of others. They want it, so they'll get it. That is why there is war, because people are convinced of their superiority.

Ah, but if God wishes to, he can take this world and make it a utopia. It's a perk of being all-powerful. Well, why not? He apparently doesn't care what humanity wants when it comes to, say, his downfall - he will destroy those who seek that. Why allow Satan to own the world? Why allow humans to make it an evil place?

Speaking of which, why does he allow natural disasters to take place? We don't inflict them on ourselves, so that excuse is out. They clearly aren't intended to punish the evil, since good people die in them as well. So, why?

And one final question: a woman is being chased by a murderer, who is exercising his free will in trying to kill her. She, wanting to live, tries to escape. If she doesn't get away, and the murderer kills her, why does God permit this to happen? Why is the murderer's free will more important than the woman's?

And no, it's not wrong that laws are against murderers. The laws are a good thing. But they do not inhibit a person's free will. Not at all. A person can murder regardless what the law says.

If someone might otherwise have committed murder, but did not out of fear of the consequences, then their free will has been restricted. If someone tried to kill someone else, but was prevented by others, then their free will has been restricted. Are either of these things bad?

And you can bet that if the law could make it impossible to murder, then it would. Would that be wrong?

Their beef was that Christians and Jews said their gods were false, not that they didn't exist. They thought of them much what I think of them. Second, they said that no human could be a god because no human was infinite and perfect. In return, the Romans said the Christian and Jewish God was false and that the priests were charlatans. The Romans were considered to be religious politicians, and they absorbed other pagan religions because other pagan religions didn't mind adding to their pantheon. You'll find that most monotheistic religions were either destroyed or enslaved by the Romans because they would not adopt a polytheistic belief.

Precisely. As long as you could accept them, they accepted you.

No, no. I would be less offended because he has a religious reason for his statement, backed up by proofs in his religion. To say my God does not exist without proof is just offensive. It's like someone talking crap about your mom without ever meeting her. They don't know her, so they have no right to say anything about her.

So you don't think "I've looked and never found any evidence" is an acceptable reason to conclude that your God does not exist? Or what would you say if someone came up to and said "I've seen proof of my religion, and my religion says that no other Gods exist, not even false ones, so your God obviously doesn't exist"?

Because any intelligent creature has the ability to murder, steal, lie, cheat, or commit adultery. God did not "create" intelligence. God was intelligent, God created intelligent creatures. God did not want mindless drones that did His will because they could not do anything else. He wanted creatures that wanted to be with Him. God gave the angels intelligence because he did not want them to be mindless. It was their choice to sin. You cannot fault God for someone else's choices, just like I cannot fault you for what my friend says.

So God has the capacity to do evil as well, then?

He does love everyone. Yes, even the ones that want him dead. And why destroy them? Because it's just. It is just to destroy a creature that attempts murder. It is just to destroy a creature that attempts to harm you and your friends. If someone tried to hurt your best friend and you knew they could not harm you, would you not stop them? And if someone was trying to kill your best friend, would you not be inclined to use deadly force. Acknowledge, at least, the principle of justice. Don't use it in some arguments and then disregard it completely in others.

So the reason for killing those that want to destroy God has shifted form "They want to kill him" to "they want to kill his best friend (whoever that is)". Well, who is this other person that they're going to harm?

True. I grew up in a Catholic home and a Presbyterian home (divorced). Because the Christian God seemed to conflict with Himself so much, I decided He was obviously a sham. So I was athiest. It took a good 6 years after that before I decided otherwise, and I am neither Catholic nor Presbyterian now.

Ok.

That's why I was specific about the New Testament. The Old Testament is about justice. The Old Testament was for Jews, however. Not Christians. The Christian beliefs are about love. The whole New Testament is about love.

But to get technical, yes even that deals with love. Adulterers and homosexuals practiced sexual relationships outside of the Law, and defiled the concept of monogomous inter-sexual love.

How? I can understand objecting to adultery - it's a betrayal of trust. But how, exactly, does the existence of homosexuals "defile the concept of monogamous inter-sexual love"?

Agreed, the method is important. That is, also, why I listen to science. But the theories involving creation, however, are considered "science" and point towards atheistic creation. I suppose that was a bad example, though.

It depends. If God had said something else from the beginning, then perhaps. It depends on how much it conflicts with the rest of the Bible. I have yet to find a true invalidity in the Bible due to being insequential and/or conflicting. As to that example. There would surely have to be a reason for the banning on red clothing. And then I would be more inclined to listen. However, the commandments don't apply to Christianity, they are the Law. And Christianity is not of the Law. I've stated that before. It would depend on the New Testament's stance on red clothing...

And if it were repeated in the New Testament? No reason, no explanation, just "red clothing is evil". Would you then consider red clothing evil? If not, why not?

Because it's not what the Koran says, not in literal words. Just like the Bible never says there is a Trinity, and yet people believe in one, or never says Purgatory and yet the Catholics will say there is such a thing. People find reasons to believe what they want to believe. They will find something that "says" they are right. Or something that they can twist into "saying" they are right. If the Koran explicitly said, "Murder all infidels," then I think it would be more than just small fundementalist terror groups trying to kill us.

So you'd have no problem if the Israelis decided to just kill every single Palestinian in the Holy Land, to take it all for themselves? After all, precisely the same act was sanctioned by God thousands of years ago, and God's desires are constant. Would you consider it justified?

And you know what? Even if the Koran did say "kill all infidels", I don't think the entire Islamic world would be rising up to kill us. For one thing, if it had such a policy, it would've had a much harder time spreading in the first place. For another - and I realise you may find this a strange idea - there are in fact many, many people in the world whose mrality does not come solely from what their religion says. Why do you think Israel doesn't have the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality? Or witchcraft? Why do you think not every Islamic nation has sharia law?

Everything can be argued. Jesus healed people, walked on water, rose from the dead, and even rose others from the dead. Yet people call him a sham. People in that time called him a sham, said he dealt with daemons. God had a pillar of fire behind the wandering tribes of Israel, He changed the water to blood, cause a plague of locusts, caused the first born of every Egyptian household to die... and yet people still did not believe in Him. There were many miraculous things that God did back then and yet the other tribes didn't acknowledge His Truth. What would you expect God to do to prove Himself?

I don't know. If God can see into the hearts of men, he can damn well see what it would take to get them to believe in him.

And, oh yes, that bolded bit is something I've been meaning to bring up. Where is the justice in that? The children hadn't done anything. To kill them in punishment for the actions of their parents is a monstrous injustice.

How is it not just? You could have testified after the immediate act. You could have done many things to see that these armed men were caught and put in jail. The point is, I am saying, "They killed him and you did nothing." Literally, not before, nor during, not after. Someone died and you didn't do a thing. That is what it was like. The faithful sat there and watched the sinners continue without telling them it was against God. Often times I have sat, someone will light a blunt, and I will tell them, "You know there's no point in that." I will try ti dissuade them. Do I take it, stamp it out, and say, "You sinner! Repent!"? No, that will not solve anything. Nor do I expect you to try to attack and kill all of the armed assailant. But to let it idly go by is to fail the religion. That is what the Israelites did. They watched and pretended it didn't happen. That is why they were guilty by association.

Do you know that? Do you know that none of them ever tried to persuade their fellow Israelites to obey God? Or do you just assume that?

An Islamic god. But I'll explain all of this at the bottom, when I respond to Maineiacs.

Honestly, Maineiacs, I don't see a need for any hostility. If you feel I am doing this wrong, then you explain the religion better rather than attack me for saying something you disagree with. Yes, I understand that Islam is an Abrahamic faith. I understand that they worship the same god in the sense that they have the same traces back to Abraham. And yes, they worship him differently, as do the Jews. And yes, Christianity worships differently based on a different sect, same with Jews and Muslims. But somehow, I don't think I'm really ignorant. I do have my facts straight. I'm pretty sure Centralis understood that my differentiation was between the two faiths and their way of worship.

Furthermore, I would like you to note that the Pharisees and Sadducees were inclined to denounce the Christian God as a false god, and to spread rumours that Jesus consorted with daemons. They claimed He was a different being entirely. Why? Because the Christian Faith was so different from the Jewish one. While I don't slander the Islamic faith, how am I to differentiate between the two (Christianity and Islam) without noting a difference between Allah and Yahweh? It would be tedious to say, each time, "God, as he pertains to Christianity" and "God, as he pertains to Islam". I would rather simply say, "Allah" as a declaration of my speaking of Islam, and "God" or "Yahweh" as my declaration to Judiasm/Christianity. Why do I lump two together? Because the Koran does not have the Bible within it, whereas the Bible has the Torah in it. Therefore, I'm pretty much lumping them based on their holy books.

Lastly, to answer my knowledge about the prophets of Moses and Jesus, and how that changed my view on who/what Muslims worship as a god. Yes, I know they think of both as prophet, my best friend is Muslim... so I know a fair amount about the religion. However, in that they consider Jesus a prophet and not the Messiah is where I must draw a line between religions. Jesus is the Christian Savior, not just some prophet. Because of this, there is a difference between the gods of the two religion. Consider: The Bible distinctly called Jesus the Son of God; the Koran denounces this. The Bible called to become saved by grace; the Koran has a completely different view on how one is accepted into its faith and how to get into heaven. These two facts alone completely contradict both religions. Therefore, I am inclined to differentiate the two gods. I believe that the Muslims worship God, yes. But they worship Him completely contradictory to the Bible, and therefore it is incorrect. They do not accept Jesus as their Savior, nor as the Son of God. Therefore it is incorrect. This is the same for the Jewish faith. Therefore, I would say that both religions worship God, but not the way God would have them worship Him. It would be like worshipping an idol because they're taking God and changing Him into what they would rather Him be.

You think you know the only valid way of worshipping God, and all others are wrong? That seems remarkably arrogant of you.

As you say, I doubt we'll ever agree on this... mostly because your concept of what is and is not just appears to come solely from the actions and statements of God. Mine, OTOH, does not, so I can look at what your religion says and say "I don't think that's just".

Well, mine stems from the fact that I do see it as just, not because it's what God said. If it didn't make sense to me then I wouldn't believe it.

If humans were truly perfect to begin with, why would they disobey?


They were tempted. Jesus was perfect and he, too, was tempted. Anything can be tempted. It's in denying the temptation that one keeps perfection. Humans simply failed.

If the Muslims were so determined to stamp out Christianity, why are there still Christians in the Middle East? They are not a new phenomenon. They've been there for a very long time.

And why are there so few Christians in the Philippines? Some places are more tolerant than others. Modernization changed a lot of the older religions and their religious views. I mean, otherwise, Jews would still be slaughtering sheep to atone for their sins.

Ah, but if God wishes to, he can take this world and make it a utopia. It's a perk of being all-powerful. Well, why not? He apparently doesn't care what humanity wants when it comes to, say, his downfall - he will destroy those who seek that. Why allow Satan to own the world? Why allow humans to make it an evil place?

Speaking of which, why does he allow natural disasters to take place? We don't inflict them on ourselves, so that excuse is out. They clearly aren't intended to punish the evil, since good people die in them as well. So, why?

And one final question: a woman is being chased by a murderer, who is exercising his free will in trying to kill her. She, wanting to live, tries to escape. If she doesn't get away, and the murderer kills her, why does God permit this to happen? Why is the murderer's free will more important than the woman's?

He would deny our free will. We want the greed, we want the selfish ambitions, we want this stuff. That is what our societies are built upon. That is why He doesn't change it. We don't want the utopia, and to sate our selfishness, God lets us have what we want.

Because he made the world, the world has laws of physics, and because of these laws of physics certain things happen. Now, whether or not natural disasters occurred in Paradise, when He was the ruler of this world, I cannot say. But when Satan took the world from God, Satan changed things. Believe it or not, before Satan everything was herbivorous, all plants were edible, bees didn't sting, and everything was harmonious. Satan changed that, and Satan could have been the one to bring about natural disasters as well. Don't keep viewing things as, "God let's it happen, so He must not care." Consider, first, the argument from the viewpoint of, "God doesn't control this world. Satan does." It answers a lot more questions as to why God "lets" things happen.

Same thing with the murder. God cannot intervene. It's not that He will not. He is not able to intervene on free will. What man does to man is up to man. He's not saying one person's free will is higher than the other's. It's just the rules set forth by this world and the principalities of it. I guarentee you, if God were the one in control then murder would be a foreign concept.

If someone might otherwise have committed murder, but did not out of fear of the consequences, then their free will has been restricted. If someone tried to kill someone else, but was prevented by others, then their free will has been restricted. Are either of these things bad?

And you can bet that if the law could make it impossible to murder, then it would. Would that be wrong?

Not true. A person who did not commit a murder because of the consequences did not have his free will restricted. He considered the crime, considered the punishment and made his choice. The point is, free will is about choices regardless of consequence. I can steal all I want, that's my will. But if I'm caught, I pay the price. Or I can not steal, that's my will. And I won't have to worry about getting caught. But whether to steal or not is my choice, regardless the law.

I believe it would. And would it be wrong? I'm not sure. But that's getting into hypotheticals that couldn't exist. Remember, the Bible was written for the world we live in... not a world that is hypothetical and can't exist.

Precisely. As long as you could accept them, they accepted you.

So then, are you saying that Christianity should have accepted Roman rule and doctrine while forfeiting its own? Just for the sake of "getting along" with them?

So you don't think "I've looked and never found any evidence" is an acceptable reason to conclude that your God does not exist? Or what would you say if someone came up to and said "I've seen proof of my religion, and my religion says that no other Gods exist, not even false ones, so your God obviously doesn't exist"?

Well, the first point, no it's not an acceptable reason. If we were to deny what we don't know because we have no evidence of it, then we will never learn to expand our horizons. Our imaginations are there for us to think beyond what we know exists. Science is there to find things that we don't know exist. If I were to dig in my backyard a hole and found nothing, could I say, "Dinosaurs don't exist." And conclude they're a rumour by evolutionists that decided to sculpt together some models that look like bones, would that be right? To the second, I would ask him what proof his religion has, and then I would ask him to explain certain things that are recorded in both religious and secular texts. If he says they're all done by his god, and yet they conflict with each other... then I would doubt the credibility of his claim. You must understand (though I have yet mentioned this) if someone were to present me with a more logical and personally appealling religion or to prove that science disproves God, then I would believe them. I am not so close-minded as to deny other religions based solely off of, "My God said so." But until otherwise, I will believe what my God says.

So God has the capacity to do evil as well, then?

Most certainly. As did Jesus. If Jesus had not the capacity to sin, then Satan would never have tempted him. And, if God had not the capacity, then Satan would never have came to him with Satan's ambitions, which were against good. [Forced slavery and worship of God's creations.] But they deny the temptation. All angels, also, have the capacity to do evil. 1/3 of them did, and 2/3s are still perfect.

So the reason for killing those that want to destroy God has shifted form "They want to kill him" to "they want to kill his best friend (whoever that is)". Well, who is this other person that they're going to harm?

No, not. The reason for God wanting to destroy them hadn't shifted. I thought it was understood that there would be a war, and in a war there are multiple people on both sides. So, the other persons the Enemy would try to harm are those who believe and walk with God, i.e. the Christians, the 144,000 Jews worthy, those who have repented, and the angels. God wishes to protect all of these groups, and so He will.

How? I can understand objecting to adultery - it's a betrayal of trust. But how, exactly, does the existence of homosexuals "defile the concept of monogamous inter-sexual love"?

Perhaps inter-gender would have been a more appropriate term... but my head had been blank. It defiles the concept because that's not how man and woman were made. The genders were made for reproduction and the sexual pleasures between man and wife. No more, no less. Adultery and homosexuality are, in these aspects, wrong.

And if it were repeated in the New Testament? No reason, no explanation, just "red clothing is evil". Would you then consider red clothing evil? If not, why not?


I'm not sure. My first thought would be to doubt the validity of this whole "red clothing is evil" thing. Everything in the Bible is given an explanation. Nothing is said without being explained, and so there would have to be an explanation. I would, most likely, try to research it down to the oldest possible manuscripts in Greek and see what they say. If, indeed, it happens to be in there... then I would have to believe it, though I would definitely be asking questions in heaven about that one. And if I found it false, then I wouldn't believe it.

So you'd have no problem if the Israelis decided to just kill every single Palestinian in the Holy Land, to take it all for themselves? After all, precisely the same act was sanctioned by God thousands of years ago, and God's desires are constant. Would you consider it justified?

And you know what? Even if the Koran did say "kill all infidels", I don't think the entire Islamic world would be rising up to kill us. For one thing, if it had such a policy, it would've had a much harder time spreading in the first place. For another - and I realise you may find this a strange idea - there are in fact many, many people in the world whose mrality does not come solely from what their religion says. Why do you think Israel doesn't have the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality? Or witchcraft? Why do you think not every Islamic nation has sharia law?

God's covenant with the Jews is fulfilled. They got their Holy Land back. It was what he promised Moses, that they would return to their Holy Land and rule it. They did. Therefore, the New Covenant came about. The only way it would be sanctified by God is if God specifically renewed this quest for the Israelis to purge the Muslims. Now, the Israelis are Jewish, and so whatever they decide God does, to them God will do. But, like the Bible, the Torah is complete. Therefore, the chances of God writing a new book in it is most unlikely, it's impossible. Therefore, it would not be sanctioned by either the Christian nor Jewish religions... and therefore I would not stand for it.

I realize all of these statements. And I especially realize that not everyones' moralities are based on their religions. I think, though, that that is a sign of a weak faith. If you believe in it, then you should really try to put an effort into it. I know that people adapt to the times and a "politically correct" world, and I'm not going to judge for that. I may ridicule how soft we've gotten, but there's not much I can do about any of it.

I don't know. If God can see into the hearts of men, he can damn well see what it would take to get them to believe in him.

And, oh yes, that bolded bit is something I've been meaning to bring up. Where is the justice in that? The children hadn't done anything. To kill them in punishment for the actions of their parents is a monstrous injustice.

God can see into the hearts of men, but He can't convince them of what they don't want. Free will. People who don't want to believe, won't. It relates back to the fact we've already agreed upon. God can see that people do not want to believe. And if they don't want to, then they won't.

The justice was in the warning. God specifically told them, through Moses, that the Israelites were to be freed. Furthermore, He had gone through every other plague. The children, also, were not Jewish... and were not God's Chosen people. If you don't think the children thought lowly of the Israelites, then you are wrong. But, I do believe, that the children won't be judged for their parents' transgressions and will be among God's chosen.

Do you know that? Do you know that none of them ever tried to persuade their fellow Israelites to obey God? Or do you just assume that?

Yes, to my knowledge, that is how it worked. Mind, it happened very little, and often times the people who witnessed the wrongs spoke up. But other times, they were silent. I could attempt to find it in the Bible, but it might be in secular writings. Also, at some times, the tribes were split up, and so perhaps those in God's favor stayed out of harm, while those who had denied God were in harm.

You think you know the only valid way of worshipping God, and all others are wrong? That seems remarkably arrogant of you.

Not entirely. I don't pretend to know all of it. I don't pretend my way is the only valid way. But I do say that Christianity is the only way, if only because of how contradictory Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are. They cannot all co-existantly try to worship God. They are all too different from each other. It makes no sense for one god to split up his people like that, no matter what kind of god he is. And for a Christian God who says, "I would rather there be no denomination within the body of the church, but that it be one body," to decide three things are precise is completely contradictory to me. I guarentee you many Muslims and Jews would agree with me on this point by disagreeance, each declaring their religion the right religion. It is, as I've stated earlier, just as presumptuous as you claiming there is no God.

Well, mine stems from the fact that I do see it as just, not because it's what God said. If it didn't make sense to me then I wouldn't believe it.

All right, so where does your concept of what is and is not "just" come from?

They were tempted. Jesus was perfect and he, too, was tempted. Anything can be tempted. It's in denying the temptation that one keeps perfection. Humans simply failed.

Then clearly they cannot have been perfect. If they were perfect, they would have resisted the temptation. One cannot "lose perfection"; the ability to lose it is in itself an imperfection.

And why are there so few Christians in the Philippines? Some places are more tolerant than others. Modernization changed a lot of the older religions and their religious views. I mean, otherwise, Jews would still be slaughtering sheep to atone for their sins.

Eh? The Philippines is filled with Christians. According to the
CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rp.html), Christians of varying stripes make up 92.5% of the population.

And, yes, obviously things have gotten much better on the religious tolerance front (in most places, anyway). That doesn't address my point: that the Christian communities of the Middle East date back a long, long time, and if the Muslim world had truly been out to destroy any trace of Christianity, those communities would have been destroyed. They weren't.

[/quote]He would deny our free will. We want the greed, we want the selfish ambitions, we want this stuff. That is what our societies are built upon. That is why He doesn't change it. We don't want the utopia, and to sate our selfishness, God lets us have what we want.[/quote]

If you love someone, does that mean you must always give them what they want? It's often said that humans are God's children, and he is our father. If a father saw his child doing something self-destructive (taking drugs, for instance, or playing in traffic), is he bound to let the child continue doing so, just because it's what the child wants to do? If the child wants to get into a stranger's car and go for a drive with him, would should the father allow that just because it's what the child wants?

Because he made the world, the world has laws of physics, and because of these laws of physics certain things happen. Now, whether or not natural disasters occurred in Paradise, when He was the ruler of this world, I cannot say. But when Satan took the world from God, Satan changed things. Believe it or not, before Satan everything was herbivorous, all plants were edible, bees didn't sting, and everything was harmonious. Satan changed that, and Satan could have been the one to bring about natural disasters as well. Don't keep viewing things as, "God let's it happen, so He must not care." Consider, first, the argument from the viewpoint of, "God doesn't control this world. Satan does." It answers a lot more questions as to why God "lets" things happen.

1) God could perfectly well have made laws of physics that didn't allow for natural disasters - or at least didn't allow them to harm humans. If he felt like it, he could have created a "Stuff Near Humans Effect", preventing unpleasant natural events from happening anywhere where people might be hurt.

2) If everything was herbivorous before the Fall from the Garden of Eden, then why are so many animals incapable of existing without being carnivorous? The shark, for instance. What did it do before the Fall?

3) If Satan owned the world after the Fall, then why the Great Flood? that came about by God's will, did it not? He apparently didn't have any problem with direct intervention (in gross violation of the laws of physics, I might add) then, so what's different now?

Same thing with the murder. God cannot intervene. It's not that He will not. He is not able to intervene on free will. What man does to man is up to man. He's not saying one person's free will is higher than the other's. It's just the rules set forth by this world and the principalities of it. I guarentee you, if God were the one in control then murder would be a foreign concept.

So God is incapable of, for instance, causing the murderer to stumble at a crucial moment,t hus allowing the victim to get away? By your statement below, this would not be an intrusion on free will, and yet it would prevent an act of evil (the murder of the woman). Or is it that he will not? If not, why not?

Not true. A person who did not commit a murder because of the consequences did not have his free will restricted. He considered the crime, considered the punishment and made his choice. The point is, free will is about choices regardless of consequence. I can steal all I want, that's my will. But if I'm caught, I pay the price. Or I can not steal, that's my will. And I won't have to worry about getting caught. But whether to steal or not is my choice, regardless the law.

All right, so if the consequences of an act do not impinge on our free will, then why couldn't God arrange for circumstances to prevent murder from ever taking place? Don't make people incapable of contemplating or attempting murder, just arrange things so that nobody ever succeeds - so that one of the consequences of deciding to murder is inevitably failing.

I believe it would. And would it be wrong? I'm not sure. But that's getting into hypotheticals that couldn't exist. Remember, the Bible was written for the world we live in... not a world that is hypothetical and can't exist.[/quote]

Sure, it doesn't exist now. But cannot exist? I'd have to disagree there. It's not physically impossible. Therefore it could conceivably happen.

So then, are you saying that Christianity should have accepted Roman rule and doctrine while forfeiting its own? Just for the sake of "getting along" with them?

Yes. I don't think they should have thrown away their religion and converted to the Roman one; the Romans never asked for that in the first place. Just accept the validity of Roman religion and carry on worshipping Yahweh.

And the thing about the Romans venerating the Emperor as a god is that they never claimed the Emperor was perfect. They didn't think their gods were perfect either. It would be entirely possible to venerate the Emperor as you were supposed to without placing him above Yahweh, because the Emperor was imperfect and Yahweh was not. Hell, every time the Emperor held a Triumph through the streets of Rome, they had a slave stand behind him whispering "Remember that you are only a man" (or something along those lines). Does it sound like they thought the Emperor was perfect?

Well, the first point, no it's not an acceptable reason. If we were to deny what we don't know because we have no evidence of it, then we will never learn to expand our horizons. Our imaginations are there for us to think beyond what we know exists. Science is there to find things that we don't know exist. If I were to dig in my backyard a hole and found nothing, could I say, "Dinosaurs don't exist." And conclude they're a rumour by evolutionists that decided to sculpt together some models that look like bones, would that be right?

Actually, it's perfectly sensible to conclude that something doesn't exist if you have no evidence for it. The important thing is to be willing to change your mind if new evidence turns up.

To illustrate: do you believe there is a giant pink dragon swimming about inside the sun? If so, why? If not, why not?

To the second, I would ask him what proof his religion has, and then I would ask him to explain certain things that are recorded in both religious and secular texts. If he says they're all done by his god, and yet they conflict with each other... then I would doubt the credibility of his claim. You must understand (though I have yet mentioned this) if someone were to present me with a more logical and personally appealling religion or to prove that science disproves God, then I would believe them. I am not so close-minded as to deny other religions based solely off of, "My God said so." But until otherwise, I will believe what my God says.

1) I am now obliged to ask you what it is that makes you believe in Christianity over another religion. Out of curiosity, if nothing else. In particular, what makes you so sure you got the real one and everyone else got the daemonic ones, if the other ones can be just as convincing.

2) What if the person says that his God is not required to be consistent in his actions? It's not like people are; why should a god necessarily be different? (Yes, I know you say that your God is always consistent. Doesn't mean that every other concept of God needs to contain that element.)

Most certainly. As did Jesus. If Jesus had not the capacity to sin, then Satan would never have tempted him. And, if God had not the capacity, then Satan would never have came to him with Satan's ambitions, which were against good. [Forced slavery and worship of God's creations.] But they deny the temptation. All angels, also, have the capacity to do evil. 1/3 of them did, and 2/3s are still perfect.

So there are potentially circumstances in which God might do evil?

No, not. The reason for God wanting to destroy them hadn't shifted. I thought it was understood that there would be a war, and in a war there are multiple people on both sides. So, the other persons the Enemy would try to harm are those who believe and walk with God, i.e. the Christians, the 144,000 Jews worthy, those who have repented, and the angels. God wishes to protect all of these groups, and so He will.

And an all-powerful being is incapable of doing so by any means other than extermination? It's not like the situation you described has them being killed in battle, either. It has them being captured, bound, and flung into a lake of fire. They could just as easily be exiled to somewhere where they couldn't harm God's followers, and left to organise themselves as they saw fit - thus, essentially, giving them what they wanted.

And in regard to your original question - if a person that I loved was trying to kill another person that I loved, and I had capacity to intervene without risk to myself, I would most certainly not kill either of them. I would push them apart, stop them from harming one another, find out what was going on, and try to resolve whatever grievances they had. If that proved truly impossible, and one insisted on trying to kill the other, I would be most upset, but I would not dream of killing either. I would instead seek to keep them permanently apart so that they could not harm one another. If I were all-powerful, this would be a simple matter. If need be, I could place them in separate universes.

Perhaps inter-gender would have been a more appropriate term... but my head had been blank. It defiles the concept because that's not how man and woman were made. The genders were made for reproduction and the sexual pleasures between man and wife. No more, no less. Adultery and homosexuality are, in these aspects, wrong.

So you believe that using anything to any purpose other than that which it was designed for is wrong? Is it wrong to thoughtfully tap one's chin with a pencil, given that the pencil was originally designed for writing with? Is it wrong for a gymnast to walk along on her hands with her feet in the air, given that the hands were not (according to creationism, at least) designed for walking on?

I'm not sure. My first thought would be to doubt the validity of this whole "red clothing is evil" thing. Everything in the Bible is given an explanation. Nothing is said without being explained, and so there would have to be an explanation. I would, most likely, try to research it down to the oldest possible manuscripts in Greek and see what they say. If, indeed, it happens to be in there... then I would have to believe it, though I would definitely be asking questions in heaven about that one. And if I found it false, then I wouldn't believe it.

1) What criteria would you apply to whether it were "true" or "false"?

2) If the only reason given was that "God finds it annoying", would you consider that an acceptable reason? Is the fact that God dislikes something reason enough for you to consider it wrong?

God's covenant with the Jews is fulfilled. They got their Holy Land back. It was what he promised Moses, that they would return to their Holy Land and rule it. They did. Therefore, the New Covenant came about. The only way it would be sanctified by God is if God specifically renewed this quest for the Israelis to purge the Muslims. Now, the Israelis are Jewish, and so whatever they decide God does, to them God will do. But, like the Bible, the Torah is complete. Therefore, the chances of God writing a new book in it is most unlikely, it's impossible. Therefore, it would not be sanctioned by either the Christian nor Jewish religions... and therefore I would not stand for it.

All right, so if God were to decree that all Palestinians must die, you'd support that? You'd agree it was a righteous thing to do? If you're going to say that God doesn't change his mind, please consider that God could have intended it all along and simply chosen, for his own ineffable reasons, not to say so until now.

I realize all of these statements. And I especially realize that not everyones' moralities are based on their religions. I think, though, that that is a sign of a weak faith. If you believe in it, then you should really try to put an effort into it. I know that people adapt to the times and a "politically correct" world, and I'm not going to judge for that. I may ridicule how soft we've gotten, but there's not much I can do about any of it.

You may be surprised to know that I actually agree with you to some degree; I think it's silly to profess allegiance to a religion without following any of the rules. However, as long as I considered the person's behaviour acceptable, my advice would probably be to ditch the religion, rather than changing the behaviour. If your religion tells you to something, either do it, or, if you find it unacceptable, find a religion that suits you better. If your religion commands you to kill al unbelievers, and you (quite rightly) refuse to do that... evidently it's not the right religion for you.

God can see into the hearts of men, but He can't convince them of what they don't want. Free will. People who don't want to believe, won't. It relates back to the fact we've already agreed upon. God can see that people do not want to believe. And if they don't want to, then they won't.

And yet people can change their beliefs, and change whether they want to believe or not. There must, therefore, be some particular circumstance that would cause a person to change their views. If God can see into the hearts of men and knows how they will react to any particular situation, then he can generate the required circumstances, and they will believe. Is this a violation of free will? Possibly. But is it a greater violation than killing them? I would say not.

The justice was in the warning. God specifically told them, through Moses, that the Israelites were to be freed. Furthermore, He had gone through every other plague. The children, also, were not Jewish... and were not God's Chosen people. If you don't think the children thought lowly of the Israelites, then you are wrong. But, I do believe, that the children won't be judged for their parents' transgressions and will be among God's chosen.

So you believe it's acceptable to kill children to punish their parents? I'm sorry, but I'm never going to accept that. I don't care how many warnings you give, punishing someone for the crimes of another is not acceptable. Especially when, if God wanted the Israelites free so badly, he could have simply snapped his fingers and transported them all to the Promised Land.

Yes, to my knowledge, that is how it worked. Mind, it happened very little, and often times the people who witnessed the wrongs spoke up. But other times, they were silent. I could attempt to find it in the Bible, but it might be in secular writings. Also, at some times, the tribes were split up, and so perhaps those in God's favor stayed out of harm, while those who had denied God were in harm.

So you believe that the different tribes were split up on the basis of who was and was not faithful to God?

Not entirely. I don't pretend to know all of it. I don't pretend my way is the only valid way. But I do say that Christianity is the only way, if only because of how contradictory Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are. They cannot all co-existantly try to worship God. They are all too different from each other. It makes no sense for one god to split up his people like that, no matter what kind of god he is. And for a Christian God who says, "I would rather there be no denomination within the body of the church, but that it be one body," to decide three things are precise is completely contradictory to me. I guarentee you many Muslims and Jews would agree with me on this point by disagreeance, each declaring their religion the right religion. It is, as I've stated earlier, just as presumptuous as you claiming there is no God.

Is it truly impossible to believe that a being who is all-powerful and, by your own admission, ineffable, could establish more than one way of properly obeying him? That he might, for instance, realise that different people have different spiritual needs, and create different religions to fill different needs?

All right, so where does your concept of what is and is not "just" come from?

Where everyone's concept of just and unjust comes from. Themselves. Though, I suppose, if one were to get into the heart of the matter. It's conscience-based, which was God-created, and therefore it does come from God. However, certain matters people differ on. Perhaps it is my understanding of the matter that leads me to believe it is just, and your understanding that leads you to think it unjust. The reason our opinions differ could be because of how our pasts are different and therefore we perceive things differently. So, my concepts stem from myself.

Then clearly they cannot have been perfect. If they were perfect, they would have resisted the temptation. One cannot "lose perfection"; the ability to lose it is in itself an imperfection.

Untrue. A perfect gem can lose its perfection, a perfect car and lose its perfection. Anything can lose its perfection. Perfection is a state, states can be changed. It was that they did not resist that caused them to lose their perfection.

Eh? The Philippines is filled with Christians. According to the
CIA World Factbook, Christians of varying stripes make up 92.5% of the population.

And, yes, obviously things have gotten much better on the religious tolerance front (in most places, anyway). That doesn't address my point: that the Christian communities of the Middle East date back a long, long time, and if the Muslim world had truly been out to destroy any trace of Christianity, those communities would have been destroyed. They weren't.

Maybe it's not the Philippines. I forget where it is. Anyway, that doesn't really matter. Sorry to give a flase statement.

The point, okay, the Muslims weren't out to destroy Christianity. But they wanted Jerusalem, and so they hated those that tried to take it. They never liked the Christian religion. Because they didn't like the Christian religion, they would often try to destroy Christians they found. That doesn't mean every Christian community, and that doesn't mean every Muslim community. But time and again armies were raised to fight against the "infidel" and time and again armies were raised to fight the non-Christians.

If you love someone, does that mean you must always give them what they want? It's often said that humans are God's children, and he is our father. If a father saw his child doing something self-destructive (taking drugs, for instance, or playing in traffic), is he bound to let the child continue doing so, just because it's what the child wants to do? If the child wants to get into a stranger's car and go for a drive with him, would should the father allow that just because it's what the child wants?

Once again, if God had control of the world, I'm sure He would stop self-destruction or destruction of others. But, again, the world is not God's, and therefore He cannot do anything without our specific request for Him to. Only through prayer can God manifest Himself in this world. Many people have been murdered, yes. And many others have stories of miraculous escapes because they prayed, or miraculous things would happen to prevent the murderer from doing anything.

1) God could perfectly well have made laws of physics that didn't allow for natural disasters - or at least didn't allow them to harm humans. If he felt like it, he could have created a "Stuff Near Humans Effect", preventing unpleasant natural events from happening anywhere where people might be hurt.

2) If everything was herbivorous before the Fall from the Garden of Eden, then why are so many animals incapable of existing without being carnivorous? The shark, for instance. What did it do before the Fall?

3) If Satan owned the world after the Fall, then why the Great Flood? that came about by God's will, did it not? He apparently didn't have any problem with direct intervention (in gross violation of the laws of physics, I might add) then, so what's different now?

1) If this was His world, yes. Perhaps it was before the Fall. But it's not now. I don't know every little thing that changed between Paradise and the Fall. It's not written. It's understood that it was Paradise, and now it is not.

2) Ate plants. And they are incapable because Satan twisted them so. Satan changed them into carnivorous creatures.

3) The Great Flood was not His intervention on the world. He opened up a hole, and the waters came rushing. God protects the world from gross Satanic intervention. Satan can whisper in our ears, and he can "possess" us if we let him, same with his daemons. But Satan cannot come out onto the world in full-force. The hole, presumably, was in blanket that prevents daemons from entering our world. This is also the same with the children of the Egyptians, Soddom and Gamora (however that's spelled), and so forth. The difference now is that God swore never to allow humanity to perish again, so He wouldn't flood the world again or anything like that. Furthermore, it's not a gross impossibility of physics to flood. It floods all the time.

So God is incapable of, for instance, causing the murderer to stumble at a crucial moment, thus allowing the victim to get away? By your statement below, this would not be an intrusion on free will, and yet it would prevent an act of evil (the murder of the woman). Or is it that he will not? If not, why not?

He will not, because He was not given permission to intervene. However, if there was prayer, then that could likely happen. It depends solely on whether or not we allow Him into our lives as to whether or not He will be in it.

All right, so if the consequences of an act do not impinge on our free will, then why couldn't God arrange for circumstances to prevent murder from ever taking place? Don't make people incapable of contemplating or attempting murder, just arrange things so that nobody ever succeeds - so that one of the consequences of deciding to murder is inevitably failing.

Because we don't let Him. Why could He not for the entire world. The world is not His. It's Satan's. Again, take my arguments and cross-apply them if it seems to match. God cannot stop natural disasters for the same reason He cannot stop murder.

Sure, it doesn't exist now. But cannot exist? I'd have to disagree there. It's not physically impossible. Therefore it could conceivably happen.


It is physically impossible. If there is a will, there is way. How would you detain every person on this planet from committing murder?

Yes. I don't think they should have thrown away their religion and converted to the Roman one; the Romans never asked for that in the first place. Just accept the validity of Roman religion and carry on worshipping Yahweh.

And the thing about the Romans venerating the Emperor as a god is that they never claimed the Emperor was perfect. They didn't think their gods were perfect either. It would be entirely possible to venerate the Emperor as you were supposed to without placing him above Yahweh, because the Emperor was imperfect and Yahweh was not. Hell, every time the Emperor held a Triumph through the streets of Rome, they had a slave stand behind him whispering "Remember that you are only a man" (or something along those lines). Does it sound like they thought the Emperor was perfect?

They did. They asked them to accept the Roman gods as part of their own. They would say, "Worship your own god, but recognize our gods' feality over you as well." That is directly against Christianity and Judaism.

No, they didn't claim he was perfect. But they claimed he was the son of a god. That was my point. The only Son of God was Jesus. There is no other son of a god, or descendant of a god... if you want to be technical. No, it would not be possible to venerate the Emperor as you were supposed to. It's like venerating the Pope's word above God's. Catholicism does that all the time, and Catholicism is one of the most unbiblical Christian doctrines out there. They freely admit it, too. You cannot venerate a man as a god. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Meaning, Caesar can have his taxes, but God will be the one worshipped.

Actually, it's perfectly sensible to conclude that something doesn't exist if you have no evidence for it. The important thing is to be willing to change your mind if new evidence turns up.

To illustrate: do you believe there is a giant pink dragon swimming about inside the sun? If so, why? If not, why not?


No, I don't. Evidence specifically points against it. That's why. There is no contrivable way any creature could exist anywhere on/in the sun. Furthermore, there is no way to get it out there, and there is no way for it to pro-create, as it would eventually die. That's why not.

My point is that you can't conclude and be done with it simply because you have no evidence. I have evidence of my God, that you do not does not mean He does not exist. That's the dinosaur analogy. There is evidence out there that dinosaurs existed... but for me to say, "They don't exist because I couldn't find any bones," is foolish.

1) I am now obliged to ask you what it is that makes you believe in Christianity over another religion. Out of curiosity, if nothing else. In particular, what makes you so sure you got the real one and everyone else got the daemonic ones, if the other ones can be just as convincing.

2) What if the person says that his God is not required to be consistent in his actions? It's not like people are; why should a god necessarily be different? (Yes, I know you say that your God is always consistent. Doesn't mean that every other concept of God needs to contain that element.)

1) I have yet to see a contradiction in the Bible, and the Bible says there would be none... so that's right. I have seen things that would generally make others think I'm nuts, but I know they're real. And, the Bible says daemons are out to "steal, kill, and destroy". I have yet to see God try to steal, kill, or destroy me. If I happen to be wrong, then I will be wrong. Just as with you. You can only make one choice, there are many out there.

2) Then I would understand that logic. If his god were similar to the Roman gods, then so be it. Personally, I don't really take offense to another's religion until they try to physically assault me due to religious differences. As that has yet happened, I have no really qualm with anyone.

So there are potentially circumstances in which God might do evil?

A trick question. God will never do evil. There are no circumstances in which doing evil is most beneficial. Therefore, God would never do evil.

And an all-powerful being is incapable of doing so by any means other than extermination? It's not like the situation you described has them being killed in battle, either. It has them being captured, bound, and flung into a lake of fire. They could just as easily be exiled to somewhere where they couldn't harm God's followers, and left to organise themselves as they saw fit - thus, essentially, giving them what they wanted.

And in regard to your original question - if a person that I loved was trying to kill another person that I loved, and I had capacity to intervene without risk to myself, I would most certainly not kill either of them. I would push them apart, stop them from harming one another, find out what was going on, and try to resolve whatever grievances they had. If that proved truly impossible, and one insisted on trying to kill the other, I would be most upset, but I would not dream of killing either. I would instead seek to keep them permanently apart so that they could not harm one another. If I were all-powerful, this would be a simple matter. If need be, I could place them in separate universes.

Well, I cannot say how many humans will be left on the side of Satan at the time of this battle, nor how many of them survive the lake of fire. Nor does it make sense to me to just keep putting off justice. The point is justice. What should we do about Saddam? Should we just put him on an island with a couple of fundementalists just to not execute him?

To your answer, I'm still not sure if I would believe that is how you answer that question, but I will not dispute. Suffice to say, I believe it is just to kill someone who is attempting murder. Giving someone so many chances is being unjust. God is a god of love and a god of justice. I have mentioned this.

So you believe that using anything to any purpose other than that which it was designed for is wrong? Is it wrong to thoughtfully tap one's chin with a pencil, given that the pencil was originally designed for writing with? Is it wrong for a gymnast to walk along on her hands with her feet in the air, given that the hands were not (according to creationism, at least) designed for walking on?

That is dragging things to a completely different extreme. Of course neither of those are wrong. They aren't sinful. It is sexually immoral in the Law. The Bible says that. The Bible defines what the body is made for. We should not defile that. Defile does not mean, walking on one's hands instead of feet. That means doing something that is physically in defiance of God. Certainly, the body could have homosexual intercourse, but there are specific guidelines for which the body is to be used when it comes to sexual matters. That is what I meant by using the body for what it is not meant.

1) What criteria would you apply to whether it were "true" or "false"?

2) If the only reason given was that "God finds it annoying", would you consider that an acceptable reason? Is the fact that God dislikes something reason enough for you to consider it wrong?

1) Well, if it were only in later manuscripts, then it could be humans adding it in. If it did not follow the flow of the Scripture around it, then it could be humans adding it. If it followed a completely different syntax and style of verb-to-noun writing, then a human could have added it. There are many criteria necessary to researching the Word to determine its validity.

2) That's not enough for the Bible. The Bible gives passages on things. There's a lot more to it than simply saying something, giving a whimsical reason, and that's why. Everything is detailed in the Bible, everything.

All right, so if God were to decree that all Palestinians must die, you'd support that? You'd agree it was a righteous thing to do? If you're going to say that God doesn't change his mind, please consider that God could have intended it all along and simply chosen, for his own ineffable reasons, not to say so until now.

-shakes head- It doesn't work like that. The Bible is completely written. God has specifically said that He will not direct humans anymore until the Tribulation. He will offer guideance, He will offer support, and He will provide to those who follow. But He will not write anymore Scripture, He will not change the rules set forth, and He will not punish anyone until Tribulation. So that would be a contradiction to the Bible.

You may be surprised to know that I actually agree with you to some degree; I think it's silly to profess allegiance to a religion without following any of the rules. However, as long as I considered the person's behaviour acceptable, my advice would probably be to ditch the religion, rather than changing the behaviour. If your religion tells you to something, either do it, or, if you find it unacceptable, find a religion that suits you better. If your religion commands you to kill al unbelievers, and you (quite rightly) refuse to do that... evidently it's not the right religion for you.

Agreed. I would say, if God were to immediately decree to kill all Muslims (unrealistic, but I'll go with it a smidge), then I would recant my religion. That is not what I believe in. Genocide is not what I want. I try to follow my religion to the best of my ability.

And yet people can change their beliefs, and change whether they want to believe or not. There must, therefore, be some particular circumstance that would cause a person to change their views. If God can see into the hearts of men and knows how they will react to any particular situation, then he can generate the required circumstances, and they will believe. Is this a violation of free will? Possibly. But is it a greater violation than killing them? I would say not.

It's a "this for that" sort of thing. You misunderstand. Their gods could do things, just as God could. The Egyptians had magic, they could do wonderous things with it. It's not as easy as it is now. If the sky were to open up, and night appeared in the middle of day, then a booming voice spoke, "I am Yahweh, Lord of this world. Worship me." Then it would be incontrovercial to us... but to them, that could be reproduced by their own religions. Miracles weren't so "black and white" back then.

So you believe it's acceptable to kill children to punish their parents? I'm sorry, but I'm never going to accept that. I don't care how many warnings you give, punishing someone for the crimes of another is not acceptable. Especially when, if God wanted the Israelites free so badly, he could have simply snapped his fingers and transported them all to the Promised Land.

Justice. The Egyptians were slaughtering the children of the Israelites. That's why it was done. The God of the Old Testament is different from the one in the New Testament. Not literally, but the Old Testament God was much harsher, but that was the world humanity was. He doesn't have to be so harsh now, the world has soothed out.

So you believe that the different tribes were split up on the basis of who was and was not faithful to God?

To a certain extent. Like, the Tribe of Judah was very faithful to God. The Israelites were segregated based on their tribes. They were all the Israelites, but they belonged to different families (much like the Scots would have one clan, many septs). Some tribes would fall, others would be unaffected. Sometimes they all would. Sometimes part of one tribe would fall, the rest wouldn't. It changed a lot.

Is it truly impossible to believe that a being who is all-powerful and, by your own admission, ineffable, could establish more than one way of properly obeying him? That he might, for instance, realise that different people have different spiritual needs, and create different religions to fill different needs?

Yes, if he specifically contradicts himself within those religions and says he is a god that does not contradict himself, then it would be impossible for me to consider him a god. That is just logical.

Maybe it's not the Philippines. I forget where it is. Anyway, that doesn't really matter. Sorry to give a flase statement.


You probably meant Indonesia.

Where everyone's concept of just and unjust comes from. Themselves. Though, I suppose, if one were to get into the heart of the matter. It's conscience-based, which was God-created, and therefore it does come from God. However, certain matters people differ on. Perhaps it is my understanding of the matter that leads me to believe it is just, and your understanding that leads you to think it unjust. The reason our opinions differ could be because of how our pasts are different and therefore we perceive things differently. So, my concepts stem from myself.

Agreed. I would say, if God were to immediately decree to kill all Muslims (unrealistic, but I'll go with it a smidge), then I would recant my religion. That is not what I believe in. Genocide is not what I want. I try to follow my religion to the best of my ability.

All right, so you have moral standards other than those you get from your religion, which would not change if your religion were different. So, presumably, if your personal morality differs from your religion, you'll go with your personal morality. What, then, is the point of your religion in the first place?

Untrue. A perfect gem can lose its perfection, a perfect car and lose its perfection. Anything can lose its perfection. Perfection is a state, states can be changed. It was that they did not resist that caused them to lose their perfection.

There is no such thing as a perfect gem or a perfect car. We might describe something as being "perfect", but that's a figure of speech; it doesn't mean the thing really is perfect.

Anyway: God is a perfect being, according to you. God will also never commit evil, under any circumstances. This does not, apparently, apply to the angels or anyone else; under some circumstances, they will commit evil. Therefore, is there not a difference between the two? Either God is better than perfect - a logical impossibility - or the angels and humans were always less than perfect.

Maybe it's not the Philippines. I forget where it is. Anyway, that doesn't really matter. Sorry to give a flase statement.

Everyone makes mistakes.

The point, okay, the Muslims weren't out to destroy Christianity. But they wanted Jerusalem, and so they hated those that tried to take it. They never liked the Christian religion. Because they didn't like the Christian religion, they would often try to destroy Christians they found. That doesn't mean every Christian community, and that doesn't mean every Muslim community. But time and again armies were raised to fight against the "infidel" and time and again armies were raised to fight the non-Christians.

Much as happened in Europe. Now, why did God permit this to happen? I'm sure those being massacred - whether Muslims, Christians, or Jews - certainly didn't want to be killed. Why did God allow them to be slaughtered? It would be one thing to let the armies fight it out if that was what they really wanted, but why let them drag in innocent bystanders?

Once again, if God had control of the world, I'm sure He would stop self-destruction or destruction of others. But, again, the world is not God's, and therefore He cannot do anything without our specific request for Him to. Only through prayer can God manifest Himself in this world. Many people have been murdered, yes. And many others have stories of miraculous escapes because they prayed, or miraculous things would happen to prevent the murderer from doing anything.

Of course he can act without our permission. I hardly think anybody asked him to bring down the Flood. If he can act uninvited to destroy humanity, why can't he act uninvited to protect it?

1) If this was His world, yes. Perhaps it was before the Fall. But it's not now. I don't know every little thing that changed between Paradise and the Fall. It's not written. It's understood that it was Paradise, and now it is not.

So Satan rewrote the laws of physics, then? Why did God allow him to do this?

2) Ate plants. And they are incapable because Satan twisted them so. Satan changed them into carnivorous creatures.

So what were all those teeth for? Decoration? Did Satan redesign them all from the ground up? If so, why didn't he do it to all of them?

3) The Great Flood was not His intervention on the world. He opened up a hole, and the waters came rushing. God protects the world from gross Satanic intervention. Satan can whisper in our ears, and he can "possess" us if we let him, same with his daemons. But Satan cannot come out onto the world in full-force. The hole, presumably, was in blanket that prevents daemons from entering our world. This is also the same with the children of the Egyptians, Soddom and Gamora (however that's spelled), and so forth. The difference now is that God swore never to allow humanity to perish again, so He wouldn't flood the world again or anything like that.

Nonetheless, the point still stands: God is perfectly willing to intervene in the world on a gigantic scale. Why doesn't he do it in a way that helps people as opposed to harming them?

Furthermore, it's not a gross impossibility of physics to flood. It floods all the time.

It is a gross violation of the laws of physics for water to appear out of nowhere in sufficient quantities to cover the entire earth, up to the highest mountain, and then vanish without a trace.

He will not, because He was not given permission to intervene. However, if there was prayer, then that could likely happen. It depends solely on whether or not we allow Him into our lives as to whether or not He will be in it.

So every time someone prays to escape, they will? And all the people who don't escape obviously didn't pray hard enough?

Because we don't let Him. Why could He not for the entire world. The world is not His. It's Satan's. Again, take my arguments and cross-apply them if it seems to match. God cannot stop natural disasters for the same reason He cannot stop murder.

You haven't said why he can't. Only why he won't. If he is all-powerful, then he can prevent it. He, apparently, chooses not to. By your logic concerning the Israelites, this makes him guilty of every single act of evil that has ever happened in the entire history of the world, because he had the power to prevent them, effortlessly, and yet did not.

It is physically impossible. If there is a will, there is way. How would you detain every person on this planet from committing murder?

I'll concede this point; one could, theoretically, prevent murder by means of permanent surveillance of every single human being around, but I'd consider that immoral, so it doesn't advance my original point. And while it could also be achieved by means of psychological conditioning, I suspect you'd consider that a violation of free will, and therefore wrong.

They did. They asked them to accept the Roman gods as part of their own. They would say, "Worship your own god, but recognize our gods' feality over you as well." That is directly against Christianity and Judaism.

As I recall, the First Commandment was "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Doesn't mean there are no other gods. And the Romans did not, AFAIK, ask for their gods to be worshipped (as in, everybody must make sacrifices at the temple and so forth). It's not like all Romans worshipped their gods, either, so why expect other people to?

No, they didn't claim he was perfect. But they claimed he was the son of a god. That was my point. The only Son of God was Jesus. There is no other son of a god, or descendant of a god... if you want to be technical. No, it would not be possible to venerate the Emperor as you were supposed to. It's like venerating the Pope's word above God's. Catholicism does that all the time, and Catholicism is one of the most unbiblical Christian doctrines out there. They freely admit it, too. You cannot venerate a man as a god. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Meaning, Caesar can have his taxes, but God will be the one worshipped.

The thing is, the Roman concept of a "God" was different to Judeo-Christian one. As you know. If they used a different word to describe it but kept the definition precisely the same, would you still have a problem with it?

No, I don't. Evidence specifically points against it. That's why. There is no contrivable way any creature could exist anywhere on/in the sun. Furthermore, there is no way to get it out there, and there is no way for it to pro-create, as it would eventually die. That's why not.

Perfectly valid, but why does this not apply to God? All of this evidence you've brought up is physical evidence. Yet there is no physical evidence for God, either. Saying "you just haven't found it yet" isn't enough; the same could equally well apply to the pink dragon inside the sun.

My point is that you can't conclude and be done with it simply because you have no evidence. I have evidence of my God, that you do not does not mean He does not exist. That's the dinosaur analogy. There is evidence out there that dinosaurs existed... but for me to say, "They don't exist because I couldn't find any bones," is foolish.

The difference there is that if you go out and ask people in the field of paleontology, they can show you their evidence that dinosaurs existed. Can you show me your evidence that God exists? In my experience, religious belief is usually based on personal feelings that can't really be described to other people.

1) I have yet to see a contradiction in the Bible, and the Bible says there would be none... so that's right. I have seen things that would generally make others think I'm nuts, but I know they're real. And, the Bible says daemons are out to "steal, kill, and destroy". I have yet to see God try to steal, kill, or destroy me. If I happen to be wrong, then I will be wrong. Just as with you. You can only make one choice, there are many out there.

So what are these things you think you've seen?

2) Then I would understand that logic. If his god were similar to the Roman gods, then so be it. Personally, I don't really take offense to another's religion until they try to physically assault me due to religious differences. As that has yet happened, I have no really qualm with anyone.

Ok.

A trick question. God will never do evil. There are no circumstances in which doing evil is most beneficial. Therefore, God would never do evil.

Therefore, God clearly does not have the capacity to do evil. If there are no circumstances under which he would do it, then he is not capable of it.

Well, I cannot say how many humans will be left on the side of Satan at the time of this battle, nor how many of them survive the lake of fire. Nor does it make sense to me to just keep putting off justice. The point is justice. What should we do about Saddam? Should we just put him on an island with a couple of fundementalists just to not execute him?

Personally, I think he ought to be imprisoned for life, not executed, but that's just me. Anyway, I don't love Saddam, whereas you, being Christian, are supposed to. Isn't that ironic? I hate the guy, and I want him kept alive. You're commanded to love him, and you want him executed.

To your answer, I'm still not sure if I would believe that is how you answer that question, but I will not dispute. Suffice to say, I believe it is just to kill someone who is attempting murder. Giving someone so many chances is being unjust. God is a god of love and a god of justice. I have mentioned this.

Why is it unjust? You throw that word around a lot, but you never explain what you mean by it.

That is dragging things to a completely different extreme. Of course neither of those are wrong. They aren't sinful. It is sexually immoral in the Law. The Bible says that. The Bible defines what the body is made for. We should not defile that. Defile does not mean, walking on one's hands instead of feet. That means doing something that is physically in defiance of God. Certainly, the body could have homosexual intercourse, but there are specific guidelines for which the body is to be used when it comes to sexual matters. That is what I meant by using the body for what it is not meant.

But what's the difference? You said they were immoral because the Bible says they shouldn't be done, and the Bible says they shoudn't be done because the body wasn't designed to do them. Why, then, is that principle not applied consistently? For that matter, why would a loving God care in the first place? If your brain is wired up so that you fall in love with a member of the same sex rather than one of the opposite sex, why would he consider that wrong based solely on the gender of the people involved? Why begrudge them happiness?

1) Well, if it were only in later manuscripts, then it could be humans adding it in. If it did not follow the flow of the Scripture around it, then it could be humans adding it. If it followed a completely different syntax and style of verb-to-noun writing, then a human could have added it. There are many criteria necessary to researching the Word to determine its validity.

So it's solely a matter of whether it was there originally?

2) That's not enough for the Bible. The Bible gives passages on things. There's a lot more to it than simply saying something, giving a whimsical reason, and that's why. Everything is detailed in the Bible, everything.

All right. So what was the reason behind the ban on wearing shirts of two different fibres? Why does Paul say that being "effeminate" is enough to ensure that you shall not "inherit the Kingdom of God"? And, again: why ban homosexuality? This really does seem to be something which is considered bad "because God said so".

-shakes head- It doesn't work like that. The Bible is completely written. God has specifically said that He will not direct humans anymore until the Tribulation. He will offer guideance, He will offer support, and He will provide to those who follow. But He will not write anymore Scripture, He will not change the rules set forth, and He will not punish anyone until Tribulation. So that would be a contradiction to the Bible.

And if God had not said that? Would you consider it right just because he said so?

It's a "this for that" sort of thing. You misunderstand. Their gods could do things, just as God could. The Egyptians had magic, they could do wonderous things with it. It's not as easy as it is now. If the sky were to open up, and night appeared in the middle of day, then a booming voice spoke, "I am Yahweh, Lord of this world. Worship me." Then it would be incontrovercial to us... but to them, that could be reproduced by their own religions. Miracles weren't so "black and white" back then.

All right, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, because I'm taking the idea of God being all-powerful at face value, so I'll try a different approach. Why couldn't God simply move all of the people in the Promised Land to somewhere else? And why did he have to promise the Israelites land that someone else was living on anyway? Couldn't he have given them somewhere that didn't require them to commit genocide to obtain?

Justice. The Egyptians were slaughtering the children of the Israelites. That's why it was done. The God of the Old Testament is different from the one in the New Testament. Not literally, but the Old Testament God was much harsher, but that was the world humanity was. He doesn't have to be so harsh now, the world has soothed out.

Justice for the Egyptians killing the children of the Israelites would be to kill those doing the killing. Not their children. If someone kills a child, you punish them. You don't punish their child.

And you didn't answer my other question: if God was so worried about the freedom of Israelites, why not just snap his fingers and move them to the Promised Land instantly? It's no more a violation of the laws of physics than unleashing a world-drowning flood, or parting the Red Sea.

To a certain extent. Like, the Tribe of Judah was very faithful to God. The Israelites were segregated based on their tribes. They were all the Israelites, but they belonged to different families (much like the Scots would have one clan, many septs). Some tribes would fall, others would be unaffected. Sometimes they all would. Sometimes part of one tribe would fall, the rest wouldn't. It changed a lot.

Ok.

Yes, if he specifically contradicts himself within those religions and says he is a god that does not contradict himself, then it would be impossible for me to consider him a god. That is just logical.

Why is God forbidden to contradict himself? If he does contradict himself, then it's irrelevant whether he says he does or not, because that statement of non-contradiction is in itself a contradiction. Who can know the mind of God?

And if God does not contradict himself, why are there two different accounts of Creation in Genesis?

All right, so you have moral standards other than those you get from your religion, which would not change if your religion were different. So, presumably, if your personal morality differs from your religion, you'll go with your personal morality. What, then, is the point of your religion in the first place?

The point is, certain things about me did change when I "got" religion, and certain things didn't. I wouldn't have become Christian if I didn't agree with it at all in the first place. My thoughts and the basis of Christianity coincided a lot.

There is no such thing as a perfect gem or a perfect car. We might describe something as being "perfect", but that's a figure of speech; it doesn't mean the thing really is perfect.

Anyway: God is a perfect being, according to you. God will also never commit evil, under any circumstances. This does not, apparently, apply to the angels or anyone else; under some circumstances, they will commit evil. Therefore, is there not a difference between the two? Either God is better than perfect - a logical impossibility - or the angels and humans were always less than perfect.

Well, by perfect gem, I meant in quality... though I think flawless is the term they use. Regardless, I'll concede.

However, the difference between God and the angels and humans is that God is infinite, whereas the angels and humans are not. God was always perfect, He was not created perfect. Things that are created and are not infinite can change. Something that is infinite cannot change, for it would cease to be infinite. It's not that God is better than perfect, it's that He will not change because it would conflict with His... infiniteness...

Everyone makes mistakes.

Maineiacs was right... Indonesia. My bad, that's the place.

Much as happened in Europe. Now, why did God permit this to happen? I'm sure those being massacred - whether Muslims, Christians, or Jews - certainly didn't want to be killed. Why did God allow them to be slaughtered? It would be one thing to let the armies fight it out if that was what they really wanted, but why let them drag in innocent bystanders?
Of course he can act without our permission. I hardly think anybody asked him to bring down the Flood. If he can act uninvited to destroy humanity, why can't he act uninvited to protect it?
Nonetheless, the point still stands: God is perfectly willing to intervene in the world on a gigantic scale. Why doesn't he do it in a way that helps people as opposed to harming them?
You haven't said why he can't. Only why he won't. If he is all-powerful, then he can prevent it. He, apparently, chooses not to. By your logic concerning the Israelites, this makes him guilty of every single act of evil that has ever happened in the entire history of the world, because he had the power to prevent them, effortlessly, and yet did not.

It wasn't like every town was a peaceful little place, and then along come some soldiers to slaughter the masses. Most towns were heavily armed areas, because they knew of the inevitable conflicts.

He did, during the Flood. But afterwards, He swore never again to interevene without our askance. That is why he cannot, because it would conflict with His words. He said he will not without our askance until the Tribulation, and that's why He cannot.

So Satan rewrote the laws of physics, then? Why did God allow him to do this?

So what were all those teeth for? Decoration? Did Satan redesign them all from the ground up? If so, why didn't he do it to all of them?

Not really rewrote them. Obviously it rained, it thundered, it lightning, there was fire, and other things around that happened in Paradise. But without God in control of the world, there is no protection over humanity from nature. Once again, it was not in God's hands after Original Sin. God did not have control of the world. The world was still based on its physical properties, but they could have been altered somewhat this way or that (isn't that what evolution is anyway?).

This, once again, could be explained for the evolutionary difference in creatures now and then. Of course, every creature could have been changed into ravenous evils, but then the slaughter would be so immense that nothing would have been left. Satan, instead, preferred to make God's people suffer because God wanted them, not Lucifer. Satan is by far not stupid, he knew how to make things, being second to God as Lucifer. So he knew what to alter to make this web of life continue as it does today.

It is a gross violation of the laws of physics for water to appear out of nowhere in sufficient quantities to cover the entire earth, up to the highest mountain, and then vanish without a trace.

Not per se, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The water built up. "The waters gushed from everywhere" could have been a hyperbole meant to explain how insane the water was. And it didn't just "vanish without a trace," every religion except evolutionism has a flood story. Atlanis was said to be "lost under the water." A good deal many things have been found in places where they could not be found. Certain plants grow in different continents where they never could have gotten there without some second means of travel, but they pre-date humanity. There's many different things that lead to religious thoughts about the Flood. Remember, evolutionism is a new religion, every other religion (all the way back to the Sumerians) contains a flood story.

So every time someone prays to escape, they will? And all the people who don't escape obviously didn't pray hard enough?

No, and no. It's like that post that was here earlier about the man on his roof waiting for God to deliver him and God had sent him two boats and a helicopter. One cannot expect that prayer is the only way out, but that one must make efforts of one's own as well. I cannot simply pray to make an A on a test, turn it in blank, and come back with an A. Those who pray but do not work with what is given to them, will likely fail. And those who escape without prayer are smart thinkers. It's not all about prayer. I could simply pray, "God, help me through this situation." And that's all it could take.

As I recall, the First Commandment was "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Doesn't mean there are no other gods. And the Romans did not, AFAIK, ask for their gods to be worshipped (as in, everybody must make sacrifices at the temple and so forth). It's not like all Romans worshipped their gods, either, so why expect other people to?

"Before me" could be taken in two ways, considering the translation. One would have to look at the Hebrew to get the literal meaning. But "before me" as in my presence, or "before me" as in He's the first. Personally, I'm going to say it's the first of the two. If you would like me to research that to a conclusive point with the Hebrew word, its meaning, and how it plays into the context of the Commandment, I will.

The thing is, the Roman concept of a "God" was different to Judeo-Christian one. As you know. If they used a different word to describe it but kept the definition precisely the same, would you still have a problem with it?

Yes, because they wanted the Judeo-Christians to accept their gods as divine. That's the line. Regardless what word was used, to accept something as divine is to put another god "before me".

Perfectly valid, but why does this not apply to God? All of this evidence you've brought up is physical evidence. Yet there is no physical evidence for God, either. Saying "you just haven't found it yet" isn't enough; the same could equally well apply to the pink dragon inside the sun.

The difference there is that if you go out and ask people in the field of paleontology, they can show you their evidence that dinosaurs existed. Can you show me your evidence that God exists? In my experience, religious belief is usually based on personal feelings that can't really be described to other people.

So what are these things you think you've seen?

Well, for one, daemons and angels. Both. I've seen the "possessed" and I've seen angels that protect. I've seen even small "miracles". Perhaps my favorite, though it was small, was I had been lost and I didn't know how to get where I was going (I was walking there). So I'd been like, "God, please just show me the way." And up comes this one girl's car, a girl that I knew was going to the same place. Her license plate said "Tay tay" (her name being Tayler) and, it being the brightest blue new VW Bug, was unmistakeable. I saw where it pulled in, sure enough it was where I had to go. Certainly, one could play that off as coincidence, but I don't.

Therefore, God clearly does not have the capacity to do evil. If there are no circumstances under which he would do it, then he is not capable of it.

By understanding what evil is, one can do it. God can do evil, if He wanted to break being infinite. But, as I'd said, God is infinite and unchanging... so He will not.

Personally, I think he ought to be imprisoned for life, not executed, but that's just me. Anyway, I don't love Saddam, whereas you, being Christian, are supposed to. Isn't that ironic? I hate the guy, and I want him kept alive. You're commanded to love him, and you want him executed.

Because as much as I love, I love with justice. A murderer should not be let live, he ought to be sentenced to death.

Why is it unjust? You throw that word around a lot, but you never explain what you mean by it.

Well, justice, I suppose is up to the person speaking the word. I believe in a swifter form of justice. The law has a "three strike" rule, which is perfectly fine to me. It a person cannot learn the first two times, then he will not learn. So, I firmly believe that a more harsher penalty should be instated. Humans are given so many chances, and God is patient. But there is a time when there are no more chances, and the penalty must be sentenced. In the case of a murderer, I'm more harsh than that. But I'm imperfect in my love.

But what's the difference? You said they were immoral because the Bible says they shouldn't be done, and the Bible says they shoudn't be done because the body wasn't designed to do them. Why, then, is that principle not applied consistently? For that matter, why would a loving God care in the first place? If your brain is wired up so that you fall in love with a member of the same sex rather than one of the opposite sex, why would he consider that wrong based solely on the gender of the people involved? Why begrudge them happiness?

The difference is that your hands are tools, and that walking on your hands is a form of entertainment that does not pervert against the Word of God. Homosexuality may bring people happiness, but it's still immoral. By your logic, then, self-destructive things suchs as drugs or self-infliction ought to be allowed because that brings people happiness and/or contentment. God cares, yes, that people follow His design for us, but does He stop us from being homosexual if we want to be? No, because it's what we want.

So it's solely a matter of whether it was there originally?

Yes. IF a man adds it after the time of the writing of the Scripture, then it is not God-breathed. The Bible is perfect unaltered, were it to be altered then it would be imperfect.

All right. So what was the reason behind the ban on wearing shirts of two different fibres? Why does Paul say that being "effeminate" is enough to ensure that you shall not "inherit the Kingdom of God"? And, again: why ban homosexuality? This really does seem to be something which is considered bad "because God said so".

Where does Paul say that? I have never seen that before.

And if God had not said that? Would you consider it right just because he said so?

I had said, "Agreed. I would say, if God were to immediately decree to kill all Muslims (unrealistic, but I'll go with it a smidge), then I would recant my religion. That is not what I believe in. Genocide is not what I want. I try to follow my religion to the best of my ability." Because, if God were to do something to unbenevolent in the Age of Grace, then I would feel my God has failed.

All right, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, because I'm taking the idea of God being all-powerful at face value, so I'll try a different approach. Why couldn't God simply move all of the people in the Promised Land to somewhere else? And why did he have to promise the Israelites land that someone else was living on anyway? Couldn't he have given them somewhere that didn't require them to commit genocide to obtain?

When God promised the land, he promised the land of the Abraham, which was rightfully Israelite land. That's why it was Holy, because it was where Abraham had been (that's also why the Muslims feel it is theirs). He could have given them somewhere else, but it would have no religious significance to it. The point was, it was where Abraham and God had first made their covenent, and so it was Holy Land.

Justice for the Egyptians killing the children of the Israelites would be to kill those doing the killing. Not their children. If someone kills a child, you punish them. You don't punish their child.

And you didn't answer my other question: if God was so worried about the freedom of Israelites, why not just snap his fingers and move them to the Promised Land instantly? It's no more a violation of the laws of physics than unleashing a world-drowning flood, or parting the Red Sea.

Kill the adults of the Egyptians and what would have happened? The other slaves, not Israelites, would have revolted and the death of every man, woman, and child of Egypt would have occurred. Which would have been far more unjust, no?

He didn't because that would not have shown that the Israelites truly had faith. They had to truly believe, not simply say, "Yay, we're free" to do anything. As for the violation of physics... there were magics and miracles all through-out the Old Testament that we cannot really explain through modern science. I cannot try to explain how it could work in the laws of physics. But I'm sure there could be an explanation.

Why is God forbidden to contradict himself? If he does contradict himself, then it's irrelevant whether he says he does or not, because that statement of non-contradiction is in itself a contradiction. Who can know the mind of God?

And if God does not contradict himself, why are there two different accounts of Creation in Genesis?

Whereas you look upon the Bible as a book, I look upon it as Divine Word. So if it says He does not contradict Himself, then He does not. Certainly, I could apply your logic and doubt to the situation, but because I do not I believe that He does not contradict. There are certain matters where it takes Faith and nothing more.

The two accounts of Creation in Genesis aren't contradictory. On is more in-depth on the Creation aspect, whereas the second is about the Fall of Man.

That's why it was Holy, because it was where Abraham had been (that's also why the Muslims feel it is theirs).

They also consider it holy because they believe that Mohammed ascended to heaven from Jerusalem (specifically the Temple Mount, where the Dome of the Rock now stands).

The point is, certain things about me did change when I "got" religion, and certain things didn't. I wouldn't have become Christian if I didn't agree with it at all in the first place. My thoughts and the basis of Christianity coincided a lot.

Which things would those be, if you don't mind my asking?

Well, by perfect gem, I meant in quality... though I think flawless is the term they use. Regardless, I'll concede.

However, the difference between God and the angels and humans is that God is infinite, whereas the angels and humans are not. God was always perfect, He was not created perfect. Things that are created and are not infinite can change. Something that is infinite cannot change, for it would cease to be infinite. It's not that God is better than perfect, it's that He will not change because it would conflict with His... infiniteness...

God was apparently willing to change his mind concerning humanity a number of times. How does that fit with "God is infinite and therefore cannot change"?

Anyway, if you say that both God and the angels are perfect, then wouldn't that imply that they're equals? "Perfection" is rather like infinity; you can't get any higher/better. Therefore, if two beings are perfect, then they are equals. If the angels are not equal to God, then one is less than the other, and therefore must be less than perfect.

Incidentally, if God is perfect, how can he be "jealous"? Isn't jealousy a sin?

Maineiacs was right... Indonesia. My bad, that's the place.

All right, if you want to know why there aren't many Christians there (comparatively speaking), then I can't tell you for sure, but I'd venture a guess that it just never caught on there. Indonesia was ruled by the Dutch for something like four hundred years, so I doubt it resulted from Islamic persecution.

It wasn't like every town was a peaceful little place, and then along come some soldiers to slaughter the masses. Most towns were heavily armed areas, because they knew of the inevitable conflicts.

So? Is that a reason to kill them?

He did, during the Flood. But afterwards, He swore never again to interevene without our askance. That is why he cannot, because it would conflict with His words. He said he will not without our askance until the Tribulation, and that's why He cannot.

So why did he swear never to intervene again after the Flood? For that matter, where does he do so? I've seen a bit about him swearing "not to curse the ground any mroe for Man's sake", and not to "smite any more every living thing", but nothing about him swearing not to intervene at all, full stop.

Not really rewrote them. Obviously it rained, it thundered, it lightning, there was fire, and other things around that happened in Paradise. But without God in control of the world, there is no protection over humanity from nature. Once again, it was not in God's hands after Original Sin. God did not have control of the world. The world was still based on its physical properties, but they could have been altered somewhat this way or that (isn't that what evolution is anyway?).

No. Evolution is not about the physical properties of the world altering. It's about animals changing to suit their environment. Entirely different.

This, once again, could be explained for the evolutionary difference in creatures now and then. Of course, every creature could have been changed into ravenous evils, but then the slaughter would be so immense that nothing would have been left. Satan, instead, preferred to make God's people suffer because God wanted them, not Lucifer. Satan is by far not stupid, he knew how to make things, being second to God as Lucifer. So he knew what to alter to make this web of life continue as it does today.

Ok. So by what means did Satan change animals into carnivores?

Not per se, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The water built up. "The waters gushed from everywhere" could have been a hyperbole meant to explain how insane the water was. And it didn't just "vanish without a trace," every religion except evolutionism has a flood story. Atlanis was said to be "lost under the water." A good deal many things have been found in places where they could not be found. Certain plants grow in different continents where they never could have gotten there without some second means of travel, but they pre-date humanity. There's many different things that lead to religious thoughts about the Flood. Remember, evolutionism is a new religion, every other religion (all the way back to the Sumerians) contains a flood story.

1) "Evolutionism" is not a religion. It's not even a belief. It's a term invented by creationists to lump everything that supports evolution into one great big mass.

2) In order for it to rain, the water still has to come from somewhere.

3) Having covered the world right up to the highest mountains, that water has to go somewhere. Where? Where're talking about vastly more water than exists in the world today. It's not like it can just drain away into the oceans, because it covers the oceans and the land as well.

No, and no. It's like that post that was here earlier about the man on his roof waiting for God to deliver him and God had sent him two boats and a helicopter. One cannot expect that prayer is the only way out, but that one must make efforts of one's own as well. I cannot simply pray to make an A on a test, turn it in blank, and come back with an A. Those who pray but do not work with what is given to them, will likely fail. And those who escape without prayer are smart thinkers. It's not all about prayer. I could simply pray, "God, help me through this situation." And that's all it could take.

But you said, earlier, that the only reason God doesn't intervene to prevent murder is that people don't ask him to. Therefore, shouldn't simply asking for help be enough, since that's apparently the only thing stopping him?

"Before me" could be taken in two ways, considering the translation. One would have to look at the Hebrew to get the literal meaning. But "before me" as in my presence, or "before me" as in He's the first. Personally, I'm going to say it's the first of the two. If you would like me to research that to a conclusive point with the Hebrew word, its meaning, and how it plays into the context of the Commandment, I will.

Please do, I'd be interested to know what you find out.

Yes, because they wanted the Judeo-Christians to accept their gods as divine. That's the line. Regardless what word was used, to accept something as divine is to put another god "before me".

But, again, their concept of "divine" was different to yours.

Well, for one, daemons and angels. Both. I've seen the "possessed" and I've seen angels that protect. I've seen even small "miracles". Perhaps my favorite, though it was small, was I had been lost and I didn't know how to get where I was going (I was walking there). So I'd been like, "God, please just show me the way." And up comes this one girl's car, a girl that I knew was going to the same place. Her license plate said "Tay tay" (her name being Tayler) and, it being the brightest blue new VW Bug, was unmistakeable. I saw where it pulled in, sure enough it was where I had to go. Certainly, one could play that off as coincidence, but I don't.

Hmmm. Out of curiousity, how soon after you prayed for help did this car show up? Depending on the answer, this could lead to an interesting question.

And what are these "possessed" and "angels" that you believe you've seen like? What made sure of what they were?

By understanding what evil is, one can do it. God can do evil, if He wanted to break being infinite. But, as I'd said, God is infinite and unchanging... so He will not.

So God will not do it, because it conflicts with his nature. Therefore, he cannot.

Because as much as I love, I love with justice. A murderer should not be let live, he ought to be sentenced to death.

How is that justice? It's not like making a thief give back what he stole; in executing the murderer, you don't bring his victims back to life. You just create another corpse.

Well, justice, I suppose is up to the person speaking the word. I believe in a swifter form of justice. The law has a "three strike" rule, which is perfectly fine to me. It a person cannot learn the first two times, then he will not learn. So, I firmly believe that a more harsher penalty should be instated. Humans are given so many chances, and God is patient. But there is a time when there are no more chances, and the penalty must be sentenced. In the case of a murderer, I'm more harsh than that. But I'm imperfect in my love.

It's one thing to say "There must be punishment". It's quite another to say "it must be death".

The difference is that your hands are tools, and that walking on your hands is a form of entertainment that does not pervert against the Word of God. Homosexuality may bring people happiness, but it's still immoral. By your logic, then, self-destructive things suchs as drugs or self-infliction ought to be allowed because that brings people happiness and/or contentment. God cares, yes, that people follow His design for us, but does He stop us from being homosexual if we want to be? No, because it's what we want.

1) Why isn't walking on one's hands against the Word of God? You say that homsexuality is against God's will because it goes against his design. But so does walking on one's hands. Why is one prohibited and not the other?

2) I am against drugs and self-injury because because, by nature, they cause direct, physical harm to the people who do them, and thus are not conducive to long-term happiness. This is not the case with homosexuality; any "harm" caused appears to be strictly "spiritual harm", in the sense that God doesn't like, and using that as a reason to ban it is absurd. It's saying, basically "God doesn't like it because God doesn't like it".

3) If you're a homosexual, you're a sinner, according to Christianity. You'll be punished for it by God (if only in the sense that your life in the Millenial Kingdom won't be as nice). If you're doing as God wants you to do, you'll forego the happiness you would derive from loving someone of the same sex. Why would God want you to do this?

Yes. IF a man adds it after the time of the writing of the Scripture, then it is not God-breathed. The Bible is perfect unaltered, were it to be altered then it would be imperfect.

Ok.

Where does Paul say that? I have never seen that before.

1 Corinthians, 6:9-6:10.

"6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

I had said, "Agreed. I would say, if God were to immediately decree to kill all Muslims (unrealistic, but I'll go with it a smidge), then I would recant my religion. That is not what I believe in. Genocide is not what I want. I try to follow my religion to the best of my ability." Because, if God were to do something to unbenevolent in the Age of Grace, then I would feel my God has failed.

Ok.

When God promised the land, he promised the land of the Abraham, which was rightfully Israelite land. That's why it was Holy, because it was where Abraham had been (that's also why the Muslims feel it is theirs). He could have given them somewhere else, but it would have no religious significance to it. The point was, it was where Abraham and God had first made their covenent, and so it was Holy Land.

And that made it worth committing genocide over? Anyway, you didn't answer my other question: why couldn't God move the Canaanites to somewhere else, if their presence in the Promised Land was intolerable?

Kill the adults of the Egyptians and what would have happened? The other slaves, not Israelites, would have revolted and the death of every man, woman, and child of Egypt would have occurred. Which would have been far more unjust, no?

If God is willing to kill vast numbers of people to prove a point, he should also be willing to act to save people from the consequences of his actions. In this case: if he really feels he has to kill someone, kill the guilty, and then if the other slaves of Egypt revolt and try to kill the Egyptians, stop them. If he's going to intervene at all, he should do it properly.

He didn't because that would not have shown that the Israelites truly had faith. They had to truly believe, not simply say, "Yay, we're free" to do anything.

So he preferred to kill vast numbers of innocent people in the cause of making sure the Israelites had faith?

And what does it have to do with faith, anyway? How does visiting enormous harm upon the people of Egypt and then sending the Israelites on a long march across the desert show that they have faith? I can't imagine the Egyptians would be very happy with them, so the fact that they left at all wouldn't indicate faith - just a sense of self-preservation.

As for the violation of physics... there were magics and miracles all through-out the Old Testament that we cannot really explain through modern science. I cannot try to explain how it could work in the laws of physics. But I'm sure there could be an explanation.

That's not the point. The point is that he can't refuse to do that on the basis that it would be too great an intervention, because he had no problem doing other stuff that was just as spectacular. The difference seems to be that most of that stuff was highly destructive, whereas simply moving the Israelites about with no harm done to anyone would not.

Whereas you look upon the Bible as a book, I look upon it as Divine Word. So if it says He does not contradict Himself, then He does not. Certainly, I could apply your logic and doubt to the situation, but because I do not I believe that He does not contradict. There are certain matters where it takes Faith and nothing more.

It seems to be me that the book says is doesn't contradict itself, and then you find that it does, the sensible conclusion is that the bit about not contradicting itself is wrong, not that the apparent contradiction really isn't one.

The two accounts of Creation in Genesis aren't contradictory. On is more in-depth on the Creation aspect, whereas the second is about the Fall of Man.

They have God making Adam, Eve, the animals, etc in completely different orders. How is that not contradictory?