This is a continuation of my original discussion in the God's misperception post.

I mentioed that most people, at least that I've talked to, will claim that they are religious, believe in God, etc., but are not able to define anything about what they believe or why.

There was also a side discussion on whethere free will of man and the omnipotence of God are mutually exclusive.

If anyone has read the Misperceptions post and want to comment on this discussion, post away!

Um....Hello?

Why didn't you just bump the original post?

This is one that is just *SCREAMING* to get locked...

[He didn't bump it because he felt this discussion was separate from the original topic and didn't want to detract from the original topic any more - BTA]

[ September 21, 2002, 02:52: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

ejsmith, I have just been criticized for being off topic. The God was very cool about it and I don't have a problem with him asking me to move my discussion. I got carried away with the discussion and was clearly in the wrong and admitted and apologized for it. However, I DO have a problem with two things.
The first is you posting content unrelated to my topic :D
And second I have a problem with your public criticism -in my post- of the handling of the matter.
Especially since I have already apologized to the God and attempted to rectify the matter by moving to a new post. Since the God has not responded, I guess he is satisfied. If you have a problem with the whole situation, please contact the moderator or send me or the God a private message.

Finally, the only reason I am posting this rather than sending you a private message is that you have made your criticism public, so I am responding publicly. If the moderators want to delete this post, and yours, that's fine with me.

I have never heard the issue of God's omnipotence and Man's free will explained satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, I don't think it can be.

After centuries of debate, Islam, the world monotheism that most stresses the omnipotence of God, decided long ago on an official response: "Please do not ask that question."

I would expect similar official stances from Judaism and the major strains of Christianity are similarly non-committal.

Something I don't get about Christianity: one of the major early debates was about the nature of Christ; whether he was human, divine, or what. The end result was that Jesus had one nature...he was completely human. And completely divine. The main heresies, such as monophyism, were such ideas as Christ had two natures, one fully divine, one fully human.

The question is this...what does all of that mean? How can one nature be fully two different things? Are these people just talking to hear themselves talk?

I talked about this with a freind of mine who is very intelligent and deeply religious. He gave me an answer which sort of contradicted itself. After arguing for over an hour, he finally said
"You ask too many questions. I don't know the answer to this, but there are many things about God which can not be fully understood by mortals with our limited comprehension." and several other things along these lines, along with something about Satan making me question the word of God. I responded that I was searching for meaning and truth and said that if you don't question things you will never learn anything. I said that I was not mocking him or God, but merely trying to figure out what it all meant.

I do remember my teachers in Catholic school referring to the question of Christ's divinity as "the great mystery of faith".

Some people, Catholics in particular, seem to view these contradictions as a test of faith. Most of them have told me things similar to my friend, in essence, that if you had proof that God exists, there would be no faith, since faith is a belief without proof. This seemed like a cop-out to me.

I find it hard to belief in something that has never been proven to exist. I belief that my choices are my own and that my life isn't predeterment. I don't belief in destiny.

Homer Simpson: Yeah, god is my favorite fictional character.

[ September 21, 2002, 11:07: Message edited by: Silverblade ]

Its a simple fact that you cannot believe in fate if you do not believe in a higher being and vice versa. I do flat out not believe in either and all that the catholic school I go to has done is made me a better disbeliever.
There are too many condradictions and bull in the bible for me to believe it. And their crap about Satan I can almost not believe. Check out 'Religious Fanatics' thread and see what I mean.

How to prove the existence of god, or define his characteristics is a problem discussed by a lot of philosophers.
For example Descartes, Francis Bacon, Immanuel Kant. I like Kant most ("Kritik der reinen Vernunft"). It's not easy to read philosophers texts, but it's worthwhile.
Sometimes it seems as if a church can't allow all questions or doubts. Some religions have a small amount of weird overcome views. It's for example very important for the catholic church that Mary was a virgin, otherwise Jesus would be an illegitimate child. If Jesus was an illegitimate child, the church can't demand abstinence from the believers. :D So let's don't talk about it.

I think, it's impossible to prove gods existence. But it's impossible to prove he's not existing either.

Oblate hit it right on.

Since it is impossible to either prove the existence OR the non-existence of God, it is up to each and every one to choose whether they believe or not.

-thanos

You're partially correct. We can't disprove that A GOD exists. It's relatively easy to prove that someone like Yahweh doesn't exist, though. He has a set of contradictory attributes. I can't prove that there aren't pink unicorns flying rings around the sun, but I can prove that there is no such thing as a spherical cube.

For example, you can't have a perfect creator god. Something that is perfect is complete. Something that is complete does not create.

Something perfect can't produce something imperfect. If something can produce something imperfect, it could be made better such that it could only produce perfect things. Hence it's not perfect. We are imperfect. A perfect god could not have created us.

Yahweh is supposed to be both omniscient and infinitly compassionate. Supposedly those who sin and are not redeemed are sent to hell to suffer for eternity. An omniscient being would know its creations would suffer such a fate before creating them. It is not compassionate to create something only to doom it to an eternity of pain.

Our lives are a finite length. We can only commit a finite number of sins in our lives. Yet sinning results in eternal torment. Infinite punishment for finite sins... and Yahweh is said to be just. Funny.

The list goes on and on. Yahweh doesn't exist... I'm not saying gods don't exist, I'm just saying that if they do, they don't have those attributes. They can't.

I had some JWs knock on my door yesterday. We spoke for nearly an hour. I told them at the outset that I was an atheist. Every time I directed a question at them, they rambled about something totally off-topic. Not once did they address one of my questions directly, even though I repeated the question up to three times and asked them to address it. They claimed they were both Ministers or some equivalent. I'd expect they'd know the most about this stuff... I certainly didn't expect the mumbling they offered.

Why is religion so popular? Because it's nice. If I believe, I AM rewarded... there's no doubt about it. But the reward is psychological. I have someone to blame when things go wrong. I have someone to plead with when things seem hopeless. I have someone who has a plan for me... I don't have to take responsibility for the direction of my own life. I don't worry about my mortality, because I believe I'm going to heaven when I die. Believe me... I WISH I believed. But it's just not credible.

Judas, I agree completely.

Further discrediting YHWH is the text of the Old Testament. The Ten Commandments themselves show that the ancient Hebrews were not monotheistic, but rather chose to worship one god. They command to put no god before the god of the Hebrews...taking for granted the existence of other deities.

EDIT: Perhaps my usage of monotheistic is what is is unclear to you, Big B. I say they chose to worship one god; monotheism is believing in one god. Not the same thing, but I should have been clearer in my wording.

[ September 24, 2002, 04:35: Message edited by: The Deviant Mage ]

Great points, Obliate and Judas.
I'd be very interested to get a counterpoint from anyone who posts here who is intelligent and believes in God.
How do you reconcile contradictions in your faith like this? I don't know too many people personally that are highly intelligent and believe in God. The few I do know have basically brushed me off and said I ask too many questions.

On a related note, the Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams has a book called God's Debris that I found extremely interesting. It is a very short book (a little over 100 pages) that does not have anything to do with his cartoons and is not a humorous book.

It is basically about a conversation between these two people, a delivery person, and an old man he delivers a package to. The old man asks the guy a series of questions about his religious beliefs and proceeds to rip them to shreds, one by one, then... well, you have to read it. If you're following this topic and have these kinds of questions, you should check this book out!

Could God make a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it?

[ September 22, 2002, 02:51: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

I'm sorry Deviant Mage but I'm not seeing the logic in what you just posted. I think you misworded something or didn't clarify what you meant enough (no offense). Not being monotheistic, but choosing to worship one god do not match. And I don't see how this discredits the existence of YHWH/JHVH (or my personal favorite 'Adonai).

And Judas, perceived contradictions do not cause something not to exist. Something may seem illogical to you, but that does not prove that God doesn't exist.

And yes, I find my relationship with God rewarding. Does it give me somebody to blame? Hmm, I could blame Satan for all the wrongs of this world. After all, it was he who tempted mankind and started sin in this perfect world. He got the ball rolling so to speak. I could blame myself for being an inherent sinner and the sins I commit daily. I could blame others, and point out the speck in my neighbor's eye and ignore the log in my own (Matthew 7:3 and Romans 2:1). But what's the point of all this blaming? That sure doesn't feel rewarding. But I tell you what, it is rewarding to believe that everyone has the potential to believe with all their heart that certainly God is not to blame. Everyone has that potential, whether they follow through or not is up to them.

And about this Gods' omnipotence vs. the free will of man subject, I am studying this topic right now, as it interests me. I am still clarifying my thoughts on the matter, but I will throw this up in the air for now:

The First Commandment of God to Man:

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." - Genesis 2:16-17

The first direct commandment conforms perfectly to God's original design for mankind. For when God created man, He made him in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27). That image accounts for man's great value to God and distinguishes human beings from all other earthly creatures. Only man was outfitted with the determinative features of personality: intellect, emotion, and will. Only man was assigned a position of responsibility requiring the exercise of those attributes of the soul. If man were to make his decisions as a function of instict, he would be no different from the animals. If he required direct input from the Creator for every choice, he would be no more than a manipulated robot. By God's design, only the image-bearer approaches decisions in the same manner as the Creator. Within boundaries prescribed by God's own character, man analyzes, evaluates, judges, and freely determines his own choices. Only man was given the competence to make free judgements. And only man was given the dignity of bearing full responsibility for the consequences of his choices. - John White, The Cost of Commitment

It is a demonstration of God's goodness that He began His first commandment with a declaration of the extent of Adam's freedom of choice: "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely." Then He added the single restriction with clear explanation of the consequence of violation.

In this very first commandment, the freedom which was then assumed was clearly stated, revealing God's graciousness and refuting in advance Satan's allegation that God is a tyrant (Genesis 3:1-5).

The introduction of sin into human nature and experience did not require that the principle of freedom within revealed limits be revoked. However, it did require a more extensive revelation of God's moral will and character. For the fallen heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9), and man's nature is now oriented away from God rather than toward Him (Romans 8:7-8). And so the area of freedom became more restricted as the limits of God's will were spelled out.

But clearly God has given man dominion over the world. It was His gift for His creation. Genesis 1:28-30 shows that God put man on the earth and basically said, "Here you go. You are free to subdue the earth, exercise dominion over the animal creation, care for the Garden of Eden and enjoy it's fruit, except for the fruit of the tree of knowledge and of good and evil." (The exception stated in Genesis 2:16-17 of course.)

Why was the tree there and what purpose does it serve? We don't know. We aren't given that information. Perhaps one day we will know. But we are clearly told not to eat of it. Of that we know, no excuses. Adam and Eve knew. They did it anyways. No excuses. Sin is the wedge that seperates us from God. Satan is the hammer that trys to pound it in. Jesus, God's Son, God's gift, part of God's own self, is the only real example of unconditional love and our Saviour. He is God's solution to the whole mess. And what a wonderful solution He is!

That's quite a claim, with no evidence.

I'm sick of people quoting the bible. It's a book. It was written by humans. It's been revised hundreds of times. It's riddled with inconsistencies. And, when it comes down to it, there isn't anything to suggest it was written under the influence of anything divine. Seriously, given a lifetime, I could craft a work of fiction similar to the bible. If I had a few friends to help me, it would be even quicker. Especially if we didn't take the time to get our stories straight before we published it.

I'm having difficulty with your claim that "perceived contradictions do not cause something not to exist". Contradictions DO cause something not to exist, so it must be my perception that is at fault. This is basically a polite way of saying "you don't know what you're talking about". When something like that is said, it requires some sort of explanation... perhaps an example or some proof.

To take my earlier example, you cannot have a spherical cube. By definition, a sphere has zero corners, and a cube has eight. Since 0!=8, you can't have something that has both of those attributes. The only way you can have something that is a "spherical cube" is to shift the definition of "spherical" or "cube", or change the numbering system such that 0=8.

The same applies to my other arguments. The same being cannot have all those attributes unless you warp the meaning of the words.

I dreamed I stood upon a hill, and, lo!
The godly multitudes walked to and fro
Beneath, in Sabbath garments fitly clad,
With pious mien, appropriately sad,
While all the church bells made a solemn din --
A fire-alarm to those who lived in sin.
Then saw I gazing thoughtfully below,
With tranquil face, upon that holy show
A tall, spare figure in a robe of white,
Whose eyes diffused a melancholy light.
"God keep you, strange," I exclaimed. "You are
No doubt (your habit shows it) from afar;
And yet I entertain the hope that you,
Like these good people, are a Christian too."
He raised his eyes and with a look so stern
It made me with a thousand blushes burn
Replied -- his manner with disdain was spiced:
"What! I a Christian? No, indeed! I'm Christ."
G.J.

Judas, first and foremost I am not here to belittle you or smack you down. I'm doing this to say something in defense because everything deserves a fair defense. And most certainly a topic as important as Christianity deserves time and attention.

Now you may not like the Bible. You may not like its contents. But if you are going to study or talk about Christianity, wouldn't you think it quite important to study the Bible? And more generally, if you are going to discuss religion, you should not disregard applicable texts. Shoot, if we are to discuss spherical cubes we cannot ignore geometry. You've implied so yourself. So the selective regarding of central ideas to to their full extent has got to go. You cannot take the Bible so lightly if you are going to seriously discuss Christianity -- no matter how many flaws you perceive it to have.

And granted, the test of time and translation, as well as the incompetence of man has created seeds of doubt in the minds of men about the Bible's validity. But you can't hide behind others' shortcomings as an excuse. God gave us brains to discern. He gave us brains to choose. Are all choices good? Obviously not. Do we always discern information correctly? Obviously not. Like I said, it's a mess. On our own we cannot fix it. Only with Jesus can it be fixed.

Here are some points and the counterpoints to them:

1) "Why should I accept the Bible as the final authority?"

Answer: The Bible has survived all unbelievers.

"What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar" (Romans 3:3,4).

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (Second Timothy 3:16).

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away" (Mark 13:31). Words of Jesus.

2) "Does not the Bible have inconsistencies and contradictions in it?"

Answer: Where are they? The Bible is revelation.

"'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,' declares the Lord. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts'" (Isiah 55:8,9). This goes for our words too. Did it ever occur to you our words cannot 100% accurately describe God, because He is so much more than us? A lesson in humility yes, but a most important one. This doesn't negate the fact that God loves us. We may be created in His image, but we are not He, Himself. That's impossible and blasphemy. That's what Satan seeks, but he'll never get it.

"Many will be purged, purified and refined; but the wicked will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand, but those that have insight will understand" (Daniel 12:10).

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (First Corianthians 2:14).

"As also in his letters, speaking in them of these things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen" (Second Peter 3:16-18).

3) "God is unjust."

Answer: Who is God? Who are you? Injustice is sin. Do you mean to accuse God of sin? God is so just that He never demands two payments for one debt. Jesus paid your sin debt on the Cross - all of it. Therefore, when you accept Christ, you do not have that sin debt to pay.

Qoutable scripture: The whole Bible.
Read it.

4) "How can I know there is a God?"

Answer: There are three sources of material. First, there is the Bible. Second, there is nature. Third, there is man. These point to the Creator. None are possible by happenstance. None could be produced by accident.

"Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them" (Romans 1:19).

"When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained" (Psalms 8:3).

"By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host" (Psalms 33:6).

5) "Why does God allow evil in this world?"

Answer: Freedom of choice is the Creator's great gift to the human race.

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants" (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Sin orginated in man, not in God. God prevents sin's dominion. (Romans 6:14).

God has, at His own cost, provided a remedy.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6).

Notice that Jesus does not put emphasis on just getting to heaven, or getting a "reward". Nor does he put emphasis on staying away from eternal damnation. Sure these are all part of it. But the emphasis, is being reconciled with the Father.

It's not about living in a city of gold and pearly gates and escaping a lake of fire, its about being with our Creator and finally living in a realm where His vision is totally revealed to us. No Satan to spread doubt and lies and mistrust and sin. Just God, His faithful angels, and the believers. How it was meant to be, how it will be.

What's your choice? You have the freedom to choose. You aren't a robot. Think for yourself. You decide. Re-evaluate your decision if need be. I re-evaluate mine constantly, and I don't regret it.

[ September 22, 2002, 06:08: Message edited by: Big B ]

Wow... keep going like that and pretty soon we'll have the whole bible in the thread.

Judas, first and foremost I am not here to belittle you or smack you down. I didn't think you were. The "you don't know what you are talking about" part of my post was a request for some proof. I'm not personally offended.

As for the Bible... I own at least one copy. I've read it. I was raised as a Roman Catholic. I was baptised. I attended church for years. I attended a Christan school. I've sat through years of Religious Education. I was an altar boy. Seriously. I'm pretty familiar with the material.

Your argument is circular. When I asked you to provide some sort of proof as to the validity of the Bible, you quoted from it. I'm sorry, but you can't do that. You need OTHER sources.

As for your points:

1) Why should I accept the Bible as the final authority?


Answer: The Bible has survived all unbelievers.
That's not a reason. It's just been passed around by those that DO believe. Something doesn't require universal acceptance to survive. And even if it DOES, that doesn't make it true.

2) "Does not the Bible have inconsistencies and contradictions in it?"

Answer: Where are they? The Bible is revelation.
You haven't come across the inconsistencies? I assume you've read it... I don't know how you've missed them. There are summaries available on the internet. As an example, can you tell me exactly how Judas Iscariot died? I know of at least three different accounts. In one he hanged himself, in one he fell off a cliff, and in another he isn't dead at all.

3) "God is unjust."

Answer: Who is God? Who are you? Injustice is sin. Do you mean to accuse God of sin? No, I mean to accuse god of a failure to exist. Many DO NOT accept Christ, so they are not forgiven, right? So they DO suffer for eternity.

4) "How can I know there is a God?"

Answer: There are three sources of material. First, there is the Bible. Second, there is nature. Third, there is man. These point to the Creator. None are possible by happenstance. None could be produced by accident.
I still haven't seen any proof for the validity of the bible that didn't come from the bible, so I'll ignore that one for now. We're down to two. Well, man and nature are one thing - they're all part of the same environment. So I'll treat both points as one. This is basically the whole Evolution vs Creation argument. Just because something seems to have a bit of design to it, or exhibits a pattern or some structure does not mean an all powerful god created it. It's a pretty huge leap from "oh, this works well" to "God exists, and he built this".

5) "Why does God allow evil in this world?"

Because he's mean? Taking a nap? Lazy? Got something better to do? But seriously... what exactly IS Evil?

As it was mentioned before: the Bible is just a book. It was written by man. A lot of the writers weren't christians (Old Testament).The Bible is very interesting as a historical book. In the Old Testament there is more than one god mentioned. Elohim is plural, Jahwe is singular.
Don't get me wrong, i'm believing in a "higher" principle, which one can call god. But it's not the christian god (long white beard, sandals). ;)
I'm not even a christian.
And i don't want to convince anyone, i'm not enlightened at all. ;) Religious belief seems to be very individual and it makes living easier.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
(Epicurus)

Then, of course, free will. The freedom to choose, or so they say.

However, if God truly is omniscient, and already knows all that is, was and will be, the surely he already knows wich people will choose the path of evil and be damned to everlasting torment. Yet he creates these people nonetheless, knowing full well that they are destined to Hell. As God is perfect and cannot be wrong, they *will* sin and be damned. If this is true, then there is no free will.

If, however, there *is* free will, and people can choose the path of evil or righteousness by themselves and God *doesn´t* know beforehand wether they will be saved or damned... then he is not omniscient.

First and foremost: I would like to congratulate Judas on this most marvelous thing thing he said: 3) "God is unjust."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer: Who is God? Who are you? Injustice is sin. Do you mean to accuse God of sin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I mean to accuse god of a failure to exist.

I find that simply marvelous and will use it in many similar arguments to come. Why don't you treat us to your theory on Judas's betrayel as well? I found that most interesting.
Another good inconsistancy is Jesus's last words. One version goes: "My Lord, Why have you forsaken me?" and the other: "Into your hands I commend my spirit."
I believe there was a Jesus, but he was simply a fanaticaly good man.

Why should god be interested in our stupid definitions of good and bad.
Priests bless the weapons of every country.
If we would not have a free will, we couldn't evolve. If we couldn't evolve why should we be forced to live?

Oh, and something else. Evil is said to be a human invention (which it is, there is no other truely evil living thing besides (some) humans). then is good? Where would Satan have got his evil attitude from? When would God have figured out what good was?
Also, one of the ten commandments clearly states: Thou shalt not kill, But then there are hundreds of stories in it about people killing and becoming great hero's. Condradiction? I think so.

Yes, I invented evil. It was a lot of work, but the final version should be up soon. You cannot install Evil without installing Good, and vice versa.

On a more serious note, I'd agree that evil is a human invention. It's just a classification for an action, based upon it's outcome. Kicking a child is evil because it causes the child pain, and we want to live in a society that minimises pain (because we don't generally like to experience it). Good is the opposite of evil... feeding someone that is starving is good, because it again minimises the unpleasantness in the world. Neutral is the inbetween... the zero of the "moral scale".

Of course, this whole view gets very difficult when you start to introduce absolute and relative problems. Not many people want to be killed, so it stands to reason that most people would construe killing as an act of evil. However, let's introduce a hypothetical situation. Let's say you could go back in time to the point when only 10,000 people had HIV/AIDS. You're given details involving the location of these people, and the means to destroy them are also made available to you.

Do you kill them all? Why? Why not? Surely killing 10,000 to save future millions minimises suffering, and as such, must be good, right? Surely slaying 10,000 innocent people is wrong, though? It must be evil, right? Which level do you look at this problem on: the relative level, where slaying these people seems to be the best for the common good, or the absolute level, where every human's personal right to live is important?

Aikanaro, I'll leave my opinion of Judas Iscariot for another time, perhaps another session in chat, or another thread, if anyone else is interested.

If you truly read the Bible, study it on a whole, study books of the Bible on a whole, and study chapters on a whole you will find that what at first appears as an inconsitency is not. For example, you may be reading a verse that seems to completely contradict what you've read earlier, so you go "ah-hah, contradiction", but keep reading and think about what the author is trying to say. You can't do it in bits and pieces, you have to look at what the author was trying to convey and the how it relates to the other parts of the Bible.

Judas' fate is mentioned twice AFAIK. First in Matthew 27:3-10 and second in Acts 1:16-19. They two don't contradict, they compliment by both mentioning the Field of Blood that is purchased with Judas' betrayal money that he refused once he got it. Matthew says he hanged himself and Acts says falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed it. So those two may seem to contradict. But is it not possible he hung himself on a limb that hung out over a cliff or drop-off. So this contradiction is weak and trivial to begin with.

A lot of Old Testament writers weren't Christians eh? None of them were, not just "a lot". Simply because Christianity hadn't been formed yet in that name. At that time it was belief in the Hebrew God and hope for a Saviour. Jesus had not come yet. But there is plenty of scripture in the Old Testament that prophesies Jesus' coming. That's not a contradiction, it's an amazing compliment.

And sorry no vision of God with a long white beard and sandals here. Look elsewhere for charicatures and fairy tales.

And the "contradiction" of killing. Did you miss the theme? The point? It's all about redemption. Not just killing, we sin. Period. Jesus pays that debt. Sure we broke God's commandment, but the fact that we did isn't the end all and be all. Jesus is. Moses, David, and Paul and many more all became great warriors for God (I'm talking spiritual warfare here not this petty thing on earth we call warfare.) Did they still sin? Yes of course, they're human. It's not a contradiction, it's a fact. If you're human you sin. Period. Don't let sin seperate you from God.

I am sure that I had something to do with corruption of the god's original thread, as what Nutrimat had to say was very interesting to me, and, jeez, conversations *flow* -- no one screams "off-topic! off-topic!" in real life.

I thought the whole free will argument was laid to rest before now. My kid is covered in cookie crumbs, and the cookie is missing. Still, I say: "did you take the cookie?"

Do I know the answer? Yes.

I left the cookie where he could get at it, knowing that he might take it. Am I malevolent? Not usually.

So why?

Because as a parent, I must teach my children to follow the righteous path, which includes both not doing wrong, and confessing what they have done wrong to me, their mother. This allows them to experience punishment -- but far lighter than the cruel world deals out for wrongdoing, and forgiveness -- from their mother who will always love them, regardless of the wrong they do.

Though I don't believe in God myself, this argument on the seeming contradiction between God's omniscience and benevolence and man's free will makes perfect sense to me. If this is the shadowlands, the preparation for the world to come, then God is the father and we the children. We are given the opportunity to sin so that we may experience His punishment and forgiveness and be made ready for the coming, "real" world, His kingdom. As C.S. Lewis (my all-time favorite Christian) says, "the blows of his chisel, which hurt us so much, are what make us perfect."

I can set you all straight on the question of God's existence, too, if you want.

The real argument is whether God would have you to argue about it at all.

"Two theologues once, as they wended their way
To chapel, engaged in colloquial fray --
An earnest logomachy, bitter as gall,
Concerning poor Adam and what made him fall.
"'Twas Predestination," cried one -- "for the Lord
Decreed he should fall of his own accord."
"Not so -- 'twas Free will," the other maintained,
"Which led him to choose what the Lord had ordained."
So fierce and so fiery grew the debate
That nothing but bloodshed their dudgeon could sate;
So off flew their cassocks and caps to the ground
And, moved by the spirit, their hands went round.
Ere either had proved his theology right
By winning, or even beginning, the fight,
A gray old professor of Latin came by,
A staff in his hand and a scowl in his eye,
And learning the cause of their quarrel (for still
As they clumsily sparred they disputed with skill
Of foreordination freedom of will)
Cried: "Sirrahs! this reasonless warfare compose:
Atwixt ye's no difference worthy of blows.
The sects ye belong to -- I'm ready to swear
Ye wrongly interpret the names that they bear.
You Infralapsarian son of a clown!
Should only contend that Adam slipped down;
While you -- you Supralapsarian pup!
Should nothing aver but that Adam slipped up.
It's all the same whether up or down
You slip on a peel of banana brown.
Even Adam analyzed not his blunder,
But thought he had slipped on a peal of thunder!"
- G.J.

I don't think God does want us to argue about it. He wants all of us to come to our senses and accept His gift of salvation. Why in the heck wouldn't you?

Anyone else see the abosolutely hilarious irony in this thread?

Hint: Who betrayed Jesus?

Yeah but God's not laughing. The bottom line is Jesus died. He died for us. Judas betraying Him was just insult to injury - Satan's pathetic attempt to get back at God. Win the battle but loose the war and all that. Look where that got him. And look where it's going to get him. He's pissed and he'll try to take as many of us with him just to spite God. You going to let him do that? You going to stand for that? You going to fall for his lies? Common, I know all of you are better, smarter, and wiser than that. You talk about logic, that's the real logic.

OK, I think that last thing warrents the theory of Judas to be bought out. Its not like Satan himself came to Judas and went, "Hey, dude, wanna betray your savior for ten bucks?"
Satan is the word we put to evil and God is the word we put to good.

Please tell me you have a better argument than that, Big B. Why wouldn't you? I can counter that non-argument with one line:

Why would you?

God creates man, man refuses to acknowledge God. Does God take offense to this? Does he bellow in his great majesty and smite us? Or cast us into some fiery hell? How can we abide by someone whom even by our primitive standards would be deemed irrationally tempermental and be sent to anger-management classes? Did Jesus not tell us to, "turn the other cheek?" Then why cannot God? For he is superior? I have often found that coming to blows or making threats over disagreements is a sign of inferior rational capability, not superior.

But maybe that's just me.

Were I to suppose God to exist, how can we know the truest nature of God? What, to propose, if God is a liar, a cheat? How would we know? All of our perceptions and knowledge of him come from, supposedly, him. One might ask why he would have cause to lie- but then again, one might also ask why he would have cause to be truthful. We cannot exact revenge upon his injustices, therefore he is free to act upon them as he sees fit. Point of fact, we cannot know the true nature of God, were he to exist. He could very well be, by our standards, evil, and simply be very good at manipulating us to think he is acting in our interest. Is it unfathomable?

...God a sadist? Phaw, to even think it!...

Therefore, what cause have we to worship him? I would believe that the greatest cause to believe in a God lies not in his nature [for that is irrelevant], but in his act of creation. He created us, so we owe him some kind of homage in return, or something along those lines. To further the logic of Epicurus, the first, third, and fourth lines of his form are indisputable. Be he willing but unable to prevent evil things, he is not perfect. If he is both willing and able, than evil would not exist- and as it does, he cannot be both. If he is neither, then what differentiates him from any man in that sense? The second line, however is agreeable for many christians:

Is he able[to prevent evil], but not willing?

Christians would argue for this- sin is the creation of man, and therefore not God's fault. [Even though he created man which, in turn, created sin. I guess he isn't very good at creating things. They all seem to be flawed.]

It is on this topic that I would give an example of a parallel of God's creation of man. Were I to take children, not fully sentient in nature so they might never know the world around them, and place them in an underground playpen, where they would be fed until they were of the age where they might find ways of getting their own food [which I have so benevolently provided], and I were to raise these children on the understanding that if they did anything I did not agree with they would be punished- am I righteous? (Many would see a parallel with parenthood. The difference here lies in that when a child has grown, s/he becomes independent, and is given the ability to act on his or her own thoughts [with the guidance of his/her learnings], and suffer our repercussions not from our teachers, but from the world. God does not grant us that right) Or, the other case, am I malevolent? I created the world, yes, in which they live. I relayed my word through select few, that they might teach the rest. I gave them entertainment, enjoyment, a beautiful environment, and freedom to act as they may. Yet I punished them so they might learn, and aided them thusly in living. I gave them solace when they sought comfort. I can do things that to them seem miraculous. In all respects that we hold God today, I am alike. Why am I not then God?

One might say that I am flawed, for man is innately flawed, and therefore not fit to judge men. But in my scenario I could say the same to my children, and have the same impact. They are not fit to judge me for I am their creator, and if need be, I will punish them until they submit. They would have no perception beyond what we have now- what we can see, what we've been "taught", and yet from this vantage we would see them as having been duped.

This life is not then, a gift, but a prison sentence. One should not give gifts with the expectation of return. And upon a lack of return, one should not give scorn. These are things that are taught even to us, insofar as we are taught not to covet material things or power. Yet he is allowed to break these rules? Why should we follow such hypocrisy?

What does he benefit from our believing in him? Does he lack sanctity and therefore needs our worship to feel better about himself? Then he is not perfect. Does he not need it, but still demands it with fire and brimstone at arms? Then he is neither wise nor kind. A kind word might remain a kind word, until it is seen to be either not a word, or not kind. Even if we believe God gave us this gift, I cannot see how, were we to live under his demands of faith, it can be truly a gift. It might be grand, and enjoyable, and truly their might not be anything wrong with living a pious life- but the fact that waiting for you at the end of the tunnel is a twelve-gauge straight to hell is so disgusting in my albeit limited [I blame God for that] perception, that I am sickened at the thought of the possibility of such blind powermongering and oppression.

Those are my sentiments for the time-being...

Amon-Ra

BigB, I'm still struggling to find a shred of reason in your posts. Your arguments are almost exclusively circular.

Q: Why is the bible valid?
A: Because the bible says so.
Not a valid argument.

Q: Why does god exist?
A: Because he knows everything, and he told me.
Not a valid argument.

You also can't say "We know that God exists because of the Bible, and we know the Bible is correct because it was written by God". Again, a circular argument.

As for the irony of my nick, it's not so surprising to me. I am, in a way, Judas. I was a Christian for many years, but I've left that behind me, "betrayed" it for a fat lump of reason. That isn't why I took that nick, though. It's partly because I like the character of Judas more than that of Jesus. It's partly because it's not a popular name, and isn't likely to be taken by someone else. It's partly because I like to challenge people to consider things from a different point of view before they make their final decision.

As for the character traits, I'll sum it up like this:

Jesus:
1. All powerful.
2. Didn't help as much as he could have. For example: He had a demonstrated ability to feed many with little or no food, but chose to do so only once.
3. Played a critical part in the whole prophesy.
4. At the end, returned to heaven to spend eternity in happiness.

Judas
1. A poor man, not powerful by any means
2. Made quite an effort to help others.
4. Played a critical part in the whole prophesy.
4. At the end, was sent to hell to suffer for eternity.

It just seems that Judas was a little hard done by. As for the betrayal... he didn't betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. If he wanted money, he could just have beaten up Jesus' prostitue friend and sold her valuables for over 300. Surely someone who would betray the messiah would have no trouble doing that? Besides... what would he have spent the money on? Judging from his history, probably on feeding the starving, or on financing future journies, allowing the apostles to preach more where needed.

Also, as I understand it, 30 pieces of silver wasn't THAT much cash. As far as my research can tell me, it was the amount you had to pay someone if your ox killed one of their slaves... and that it's equivalent to about $10.

Judas "betrayed" Jesus because the way Jesus was going, he was going to get them all (Judas included) killed. Do you spot the irony? Judas is shunned because he pointed out someone would have ultimately been responsible for his (Judas') death. Had he been allowed to continue, we might be reading about how a madman was responsible for the death of the twelve leading philosophers of the time.

[ September 23, 2002, 08:42: Message edited by: Judas ]

Hmmm... it has been positively AGES when I read the Bible, and this thread has me thinking I should do it again. My memories are very hazy, no matter the fact that I have read it multiple times. THe fact that that happened about 10 years ago might have something to do.

I, like Judas (of the boards) am a former Christian. I read the bible, loved RE in school, did visit the church a few times (I lived in a small village with no church nor possibility to go to one)... I believed.
Andstill, somehow, before I turned twelve I no longer believed. I can't remember how it happened, but somehow I just lost faith, and have yet to find anything to replace it.

It's that I no longer bother to believe. i do not care if there is a Gd or if there isn't one. I have tried other religions, such as Wicca or Jedi (I'm too lazy to find a more "proper" name for believing in the Force" but nothing seems to work.

I must say I agree with Judas' reasoning quite much. The older I get (currently in the ripe age of 16, soon to be 17) the more I see the contradictions and get annoyed at the whole "Thou shalt not question the will of thy Lord" thing...

Ara
(Bastard and quite proud of it)

indeed Nutrimat, i am satisfied.

my belief in god is fairly liberal, though i still call myself a catholic.

i believe in god because, as a scientist, i find beauty in the complexity of nature. i'm christian because i believe that when you die, you go to heaven, based on jesus having died and through god's power being resurrected. i am catholic because i believe in purgatory, with nearly everyone (eventually) going to heaven. i am liberal in the sense that i don't think that any religion is 'correct'- we are not god, and so are limited by are 'human' understanding. i think that all religions are different interpretations of a single creator, and that none provide a complete picture of what god is like.

the bible (particularly the new testament) should not be taken literally because it was often written long after the events described within it. in addition, passages often contradict one another. when i occasionally go to church (used to go every week when i was younger) i look for the underlying message, rather than interpreting the writing as the word of god.

aside: i've always been intruiged by Klassen's Judas theory.

Q: Why is the bible valid?
A: Because the bible says so.
Not a valid argument.

Q: Why does god exist?
A: Because he knows everything, and he told me.
Not a valid argument.And non-christians DO have better answers?

Q: Why do WE exist?
A: Because billions of years ago there was nothing, suddenly there was a big bang and suddenly there was something, wich evoluted to a dynamic world with millions of lifeforms.... just out of nothing....

One of the most important reasons for me is found in Nature, all those things in nature are so great, everything fits so right... it can't be evoluted from out a one-cell-organism that somehow seemed to be created in a big bang. A great Artist has been at work here.

Jesus:
1. All powerful.
2. Didn't help as much as he could have. For example: He had a demonstrated ability to feed many with little or no food, but chose to do so only once.
3. Played a critical part in the whole prophesy.
4. At the end, returned to heaven to spend eternity in happiness.

Judas
1. A poor man, not powerful by any means
2. Made quite an effort to help others.
4. Played a critical part in the whole prophesy.
4. At the end, was sent to hell to suffer for eternity.Jezus, the answers to your questions:

1. Powerful? He was human here, felt pain, fear, hunger... and did even die.
2. When he would have solved the hunger problem, he wouldn't have solved much. Hunger returns, and would only make their short life a bit better, but it wouldn't change our fate, in afterlife.
3. Indeed
4. Does that mean he didn't have to suffer? His death was so much worse then a normal death.

Judas:

That Jesus his death is forboded doesn't make the deed of Judas a deed that has to be done so isn't and evil deed. Judas had a choice and chose against Jesus and killed him, God's son.

Compare it with the Baldur's Gate Saga: It was forboded that Bhaal would walk the earth, and would make that Bhaalspawn would be on earth and cause choas. Your logic is: Well, it was foreboded, so Bhaal didn't do anything wrong, Sarevok neither...... Foreboding isn't an excuse for doing things wrong.

It's a little slice off the old free will argument.

Some say that because God knows what we are going to do that we don't have free will. The more logical point out that simply because he knows what we're going to do doesn't mean he causes it.

Your "integral to the prophesy" argument is just silly. By that reasoning most evil in the world can be justified.

You need to lighten up on the attacks on Big B. As a practicing Catholic I disagree with the reasons behind some of what he says, but you're not even taking the time to examine what he's said, and you're certainly not treating him respectfully.

In response to Big B:
1) "Why should I accept the Bible as the final authority?"

Answer: The Bible has survived all unbelievers Just because it's still here, that doesn't mean that it is any more or less valid. There are beliefs that were clearly wrong that survived for centuries (the earth is the center of the universe being one). And you cite no reasoning behind this statement other than bible quotes, which is, as Judas said, circular reasoning.

2) "Does not the Bible have inconsistencies and contradictions in it?"

Answer: Where are they? The Bible is revelation.
Read the previous posts. Answer the arguments. OK?

3) "God is unjust."

Answer: Who is God? Who are you? Injustice is sin. Do you mean to accuse God of sin? God is so just that He never demands two payments for one debt. Jesus paid your sin debt on the Cross - all of it. Therefore, when you accept Christ, you do not have that sin debt to pay.
Again, you are putting forth arguments that do not answer the questions asked. BUT, to answer this, God has acted in anger many times in the bible (the Great Flood for one). Is anger not a sin? He destroyed most of humankind (according to the bible) with this flood, out of anger and frustration. Then Jesus comes along and preaches forgiveness and tolerance. This, to me, is a contradiction. There are many other examples in the old testament of God's anger and wrath, and him punishing us. Does he not practice what he preaches? Granted I don't know the mind of God, but how can you say/do two different things and be right?

5) "Why does God allow evil in this world?"

Answer: Freedom of choice is the Creator's great gift to the human race.
Good argument, but how do you reconcile free will with God's omniscience? See previous posts (such as hermit09's) if you are not sure what the argument is.

Oblate: I have never ever heard of a priest in any religion in modern times (with the exception of some fanatical muslims that have been denounced by thier fellows) who "blessed the weapons". NO major religion condones violence for any reason.

Methylviolet: If your child was going to be sent to his room "for all of eternity" for taking that cookie, would you still leave it there for him to take? Eternal punishment is NOT a "lesson".

the God: More power to you! But most religious people take the bible as "the word of God" and quote from it constantly, and use it as evidence in thier arguments. One cannot have it both ways, to quote from the bible to support your arguments, and then claim that "you have to look at the underlying message, not the exact words" which being written by man are subject to misinterpretation, when it doesn't support one's arguments or presents a contradiction. Not that you've done this, but if you told most Christians and Catholics they should not interpret the bible literally, they would disagree with you. It is either the absolute and unquestionable word of God or it isn't. If it isn't then NO ONE, including the religious people, are right.

Headbanger: I quite agree with you in that, out of the millions, nay billions, of conditions that had to come together in the exact right way at the exact right time for us to exist, it does seem extremely unlikely that it was all a chance. It is like hitting the lottery every day for the rest of your life.
But there are dozens, or even hundreds, of religions that claim to have an explanation. Who is right? Most of these religions are mutually exclusive and denounce all the others. They can't all be right, for if one is right all the others are wrong.

For the Judas argument, never mind the son of God argument, it is WRONG to betray your friends, especially since he knew it would lead to his friends death. To me this is one of the worst things you could do to someone, and THEN to lie about it to Jesus' face and say he didn't do it afterwards.

Judas (our Judas) says it was a "me or him" situation. If this is so, please provide a little more reasoning behind this (why would Jesus have led to Judas' death if he wasn't killed?). I agree with most of Judas' (again our Judas) other reasoning and arguments though.

Finally, Shralp: I don't dispute whether we have free will and our ability to choose whether or not to sin. I dispute the idea that I am going to suffer in eternity for my sinning, since God knew I would sin, AND (this is the important bit) created me knowing I would sin. Whether I chose to sin doesn't matter, God knew I would.

If you create beings that are flawed, it's one thing to want them to better themselves and give them incentive, guidance, etc, to do so. It's another thing to damn them to hell for eternity because they are flawed.

[ September 23, 2002, 19:36: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

Nutrimat: It's not the sin in itself that you believe you are being condemned for. It's the lack of recognition and responsibility for the sins committed. Knowing that someone is going to sin, and knowing that someone wants forgiveness for the sin are two separate things.

[ September 23, 2002, 19:47: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

"Answer: Freedom of choice is the Creator's great gift to the human race."

well, I don't really call "if you believe, good for you, if you don't, I'm gonna torture you for eternity" freedom.

The key is realizing the nature of sin. (And all of this is my own onion [sic]. Please do not take it as official Catholic teaching because, although I believe it to be theologically correct, I'm not certain.)

Sin is not just doing one of the list of things that God says is wrong. Sin is voluntary rejection of God.

God is good. That's not just an adjective. God is goodness and all of the subcatergories of good like love, beauty, truth, etc. When you reject goodness/God and do what is wrong, you are exiling yourself from God. Total, complete, permanent separation from God is what Hell is.

So as you reject good/God, you are by your own actions sending yourself to Hell. God is not doing it. You are. So long as you live you have the opportunity to turn back to good.

But, really, what's your point on this issue? You're not going to believe in God because you don't think he's fair?

[ September 23, 2002, 20:37: Message edited by: Shralp ]

There is a strong sentiment against using the Bible as proof. And we make up excuses against man and nature. Where else do you think I can pull out proof?

How many times must God proove himself? He did so many times in the Bible. Then He sent Jesus. Now there's no more Red Seas parting, or altars burning just like that even though they were drenched with water, no more calming the storms. At least not as evident as it was. God has proven Himself time and time again and a book has been written about it to let all men know the truth. And you just toss aside that book like it's a fairy tale. And then you get mad because you say "if there is a God, what right has He to toss me aside?" Hello, if you do not accept Him, even despite the gifts He has given us, His own Son on the cross, then why should He? That would be against your will. The will He has given you. He gives you a choice, don't blame Him because you choose not to accept Him.

How is that wrong? Instead of forcing Himself upon us, He gives us the right to choose. And then we have the gall to turn back around and blame it all on Him?

I'm sorry if I am not appearing to treat people respectfully, because that is not my intent. I just felt like I needed to speak up because Christianity was getting torn to shreds and even Nutrimat called for some opposition. And how can I "lighten up" knowing that I will never get to see some of the posters in this thread someday because they have turned their backs on God. How I wish everyone would realize the truth!

I don't do this for my health. I don't do this for brownie points. I do this because I care.

Now on the free will vs. God's omnipotence, I found this that I had posted before. And I still hold by this:

Some would say God has a detailed plan for our lives. I believe God has a sovereign will (the big picture) and a moral will (general guidelines for life). I do not believe God necessarily has an individual will for us. He gave us minds of our own. He knows what path we will take, but that is not the same as saying “He makes us take that path.” He makes us do nothing. He just knows the outcome. I like this analogy; often God compares Himself as a Shepherd and us as His Sheep. Does a shepherd care for his sheep? Yes. Does a shepherd tell each sheep exactly what blade of grass it must eat? No. Yet, for every sheep’s safety, the shepherd has a fence (moral will). If a sheep gets loose, the shepherd will not rest until it is found and cared for.

Now something new:
OK let's put that into context. God is the shepherd, Adam and Eve His sheep. He gave them dominion over the earth. He lets them go about their business, and doesn't tell them when they have to sleep, graze, or have fun. But for their own safety He made a fence. That fence was: do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Well the sheep did anyhow, and they got lost. God takes action, He sends Jesus Christ to right the wrongs.

He then allows more sheep to be born and live their lives. They are free to choose. He puts a fence for their safety, but some still get out. Note that they choose to get out. The end up getting hurt, but He comes after them anyways. They can then choose to come back to the comfort of the pen, or stay out in the harsh reality. He doesn't force Himself upon them, they get to choose.

Eventually though it has to end. At some point God says enough. Time to reveal a new world without sin, for all My followers. All those who do not follow Me, haven chosen otherwise. They do not come with Me, after all they don't follow Me. It was their choice, now they must accept their fate.

This may sound like I am putting words in God's mouth, but no this all comes from the Bible. And again I ask -- How can we debate Christianity and ignore the Bible? You don't debate geometry and ignore the basic rules. This is no different.

And if you are so sure that there is no God, why post and argue you about it so much? Look deep inside. Admit it. Not entirely sure are you. And that's good, continue to seek answers honestly, and they will come to you. Do it, while you still have time. You won't regret it.

Big B, a rude person is one who talks while you wish him to listen. No more religious blabber, using what they are trying to disprove as proof! I have a brainwashed cousin just like you! She was my best friend but now, as a personality like yours has invaded caused solely from religion, she is exactly what I think Satan would want her to be. Gaaarn!

"Early one morning, Beezlebub arose,
Yawned, stretched, and put on his Sunday clothes."

EXACTLY as Judas said (by the way, Judas, I love you and all your family...will you all marry me and have lots of children, too? We can be return of the Green family!)

"Q: Why is the bible valid?
A: Because the bible says so.
Not a valid argument.

Q: Why does god exist?
A: Because he knows everything, and he told me.
Not a valid argument."

I am now a divine cheerleader... "Go Judas Go Judas Go Go Go Judas!"

I'd kill myself over this but then God would just kill me.

Methinks Big B and many others need to read most of the entires on this site, especially in regards to 'evidence', 'science', 'logical fallacies' etc before they make even bigger fools of themselves!

http://www.skepdic.com/

For what is is worth there is no such thing as 'sin'. There are Actions and Consequences. Such actions and consequences can be judged by others to be 'good' or 'evil' (two more illusory concepts) - but ultimately, it is the rest of society that determines the fate of those who do actions widely regarded as 'sinful'... not imaginary memetical beings or ancient religious fiction.

[ September 24, 2002, 00:03: Message edited by: komei ]

And I would suggest you read the Bible, before you do worse than just make a fool of yourself...

Besides it's been around a lot longer than some recent website.

Back to this good and evil stuff eh? "God is the word we use to describe good, and Satan is the word we use to describe evil."

Since when do we use nouns to describe adjectives?

Selective reasoning? We'll uphold logic and fundamental rules when we want, and we'll surpress it when we need to further our arguments? Now where is the "logic" in that?

[ September 24, 2002, 02:35: Message edited by: Big B ]

Nutrimat: Much of what you posted in response to Big B represents what I've said. It seems we agree on many points. As for the "Judas was a ******* argument", there are two things to say. First, you say that betraying your friends is wrong. See my post on my opinion of what good and evil are. To classify betrayal as right or wrong requires a treatment of absolute vs relative right / wrong / good / evil. As far as proof that Judas would have been killed... I don't have any. Some accounts tell that he was afraid of this happening. How can I know for sure? It's just that from what I've read, I think he would have been. As far as I'm concerned, we're talking about the contents of a novel, and we can't really ask the authors what they intended by what they said, as they're dead by a good 2000 years. As such, I'm not trying to put anything solid forward, here.

I'm pretty busy at the moment, so only have the time to reply to the first part of Big B's last post (well, the one before that... it was his/her last post when I was typing this up). I might post later when I have more time. For now, I'll address the first three sentences:

There is a strong sentiment against using the Bible as proof. And we make up excuses against man and nature. Where else do you think I can pull out proof?
1st Sentence: Yup, that's right. It's dodgy.
2nd Sentence: I'm not making up excuses against man or nature. I'm not really sure where you got that idea from. I'm working with the idea that there is no god, here.
3rd Sentence: Nowhere. It is as I maintained all along. You have no proof.

I find it interesting that you keep asking people to read the bible. You can't assume someone hasn't read it because they don't believe it. I suggest you ask someone if they have read it before commanding them to do so.

On another note, either you haven't read the stuff put forward on logic, or you refuse to believe in it.

Xaelifer: Hehe, do I have a fan?

komei: Nicely put. I think Big B and others on his team would benefit from reading about 'logical fallacies'. They have posted some excellent examples of them in this thread.

More from me later.

[ September 24, 2002, 04:10: Message edited by: Judas ]

Seeming as though there are some knowledgeable Christians on the message board, I have some questions for you.

Example 1:
========
I am a person living in a yet to be discovered region of Southern America. I am an inherently good person. In fact, in civilized society I would certainly be recognized as a Saint due to the fact that I have devoted my life to helping those less fortunate than myself. Due to our village being so remote, no one has ever visited our society, far less introduced us to Christianity. So my question is will I go to heaven or suffer in hell? What happens to me?

Example 2:
========
I am a person who has devoted their life to furthering the education and development of third world countries. I am an inherently good person. I have devoted 40 years of my life to helping those less fortunate than myself and have given all my money to the cause of helping those who are suffering from hunger, thirst and malnutrition. I attended church when I was young but I felt that it would be a better use of my time and I could help more people if I did not have to take time to go to church and work on my faith. So my question is will I go to heaven or suffer in hell? What happens to me?

Example 3:
========
I am a person who goes to church once a week. I am an inherently good person. I give 10% of my wages to the collection plate at church. I have a sponsor child in Africa. I have two children whom I send to a private school. We enjoy holidays once a year. I have a dog and two cats. So my question is will I go to heaven or suffer in hell? What happens to me?

My questions are posed above.

I was at one point in time a devout Christian until I lost confidence in the church and its position in the Christian faith. I came to thinking about the above situation and what the bible says should happen.

I think the dilemma addressed above is obvious but I would love to discuss this.

[ September 24, 2002, 04:33: Message edited by: Mother T ]

a catholic (like myself) should believe that it is the way that you live your life that is important, therefore all three from your examples will go to heaven (but will spend different amounts of time in purgatory).

So basically if you are a good person, you will go to heaven but you get held up in purgatory.

What happens if you are any one of those people above yet follow another religion and you get there to find out you were wrong. Do you still go to heaven?

IF the answer is yes, you go to heaven if you are a good person, what is the point of following the religion (except to lessen time in purgatory - which will be finite)?

[ September 24, 2002, 13:49: Message edited by: Mother T ]

First of all, I believe that it is not the religion that saves you, it is the faith in Jesus Christ. I also believe that the "Free Will" that have been discussed in here is not completely understood by everyone. So I would give a definition of what I think of this "Free Will", you give your definition/s and see if we are indeed speaking of the same thing. My understanding of "Free Will" is the choice of accepting or rejecting reconcillation with God through Jesus Christ. Don't get me wrong, you might want to argue about the "to sin or not to sin". But personally, what does that amount to when you stand face to face with God? It is still your final choice that decides where you are going to spend eternity. Smoking or non-smoking.

Big B, by reading your post, I assume that your a Protestant. Most of what you have mentioned are things that I am holding on to.

Mother T,

Example 1.
I believe that God will give everybody a chance to exercise their free will. All of us will be able to chose, that means, they will be given the opportunity to know the Gospel (Jesus Christ dying for our sins and that who so ever believed in Him should not perish but have eternal life. - John 3:16). There is the "Judgement Day". So whether the people in your given scenario and those that did not heard the Gospel in their lifetime will be judged accordingly. They will know what the issue is and what are the choices and the corresponding outcomes are. And we, as an individual will choose. I can't explain how or tell you when and where but I believe this will come to past.

Examples 2 & 3.
Your salvation is based on your personal relationship with God, not with men. For all I care you can live your life like the devil or Jesus Christ in your lifetime (don't get me wrong, we should strive to be holy and acceptable to God, what I meant is if one doesn't have the time to be good), but your place in eternity stills boils down to whether you are reconcilled with God or not.

Judas and those who believed that the Bible is not a valid source to prove God's existence. For the record, I strongly believe that it is. I have some explainations, so here goes:

First of all, the Bible is the Book of Books, it is actually composed of histories, documentaries, stories, letters, collections of poems and psalms (songs), for a total of 67 books. It was written by dozens of authors inspired by God. In a span of several hundreds of centuries. And all have a single theme, God. And all were written in a single thought, as if only by one author. Well, you can argue that many people can do that. But you do have to consider that some of them have never met each other, know the existence of each other, never read each others writtings, some of them are not educated at all. Authors of diverse cultures, different level of education, different social standings came up with works that showed not only coherency of topic but a single line of thought... an incredible coincidence? Just like the Big Bang Theory?

If you can say that it is not enough to be a proof simply because it was written by men. Then I can claim that every books of history and documentations about every nation in this world is not a valid reference for the nation that they depict. Or every songs and story should not be attributed to the cultures that they define. Why? They are written by men who were inspired by their nation or culture. But why do honor the validity of a nation's history and cultures based on the writtings of men? Because they (the recorders) have experienced it and because it had happened. In the same way, the events described in the Bible were experienced by the authors or by others. Witnesses of these events were mentioned. And these events were even proven by the modern day scientists and historians. So I do not see why you must argue that the Bible is not a valid reference of God's very being.

I believe in science because I have experience it, and in the same way, I believed in what the Bible says because I have experienced it too, in fact billions of people have experienced the goodness of the Bible. You argued that there were many contradictions in the Bible that made you doubt it, what about the science and logic that you believed in? I do not question if you have read the Bible or not. However, I do question how you read the Bible, is it with your head or is it with your heart? What difference that does makes? An eternal destination. Surely, a man of your logical and intellectual capacity can decipher that.

I do not know how I can make you accept that God is just, nor can I explain why God allowed evil to ruin the world. Simply because I do not have the answers, but I wonder why scientist would rather believe in theories that were never proven or have any records that it actually happened ("Big Bang Theory", "Evolutions", etc.). Do you see partiality here?

A parting question. Do you really know when an answer is good enough for you? ...Or does God have to personally come down and tell you?

[ September 24, 2002, 12:23: Message edited by: nior ]

Noir, thanks for your reply.

I have a question for you. If you choose not to seek redemption through God in life, when judgement day comes, will you then be given a second chance?

[ September 24, 2002, 12:32: Message edited by: Mother T ]

Nior:

It was written by dozens of authors inspired by God.Some evidence, please.

In a span of several hundreds of centuries.No, most certainly NOT in a span like that. Several hundreds of centuries is at least 20000 years. Could we even write back then? Irrespective, Christianity is much younger than that.

And all were written in a single thought, as if only by one author.You think so? It seems their stories had inconsistencies. Apparently they think differently at least some of the time.

But you do have to consider that some of them have never met each other, know the existence of each other, never read each others writtingsDo you have proof of this? Can you tell me with any level of certainty that one didn't read the other's work before drafting his own?

Then I can claim that every books of history and documentations about every nation in this world is not a valid reference for the nation that they depict.That is correct. You can. That doesn't unseat my argument, though. Also, if you were to make a claim like that, people would step forward with concrete evidence to prove their points. In their absense, supporters or followers would offer explanations... much like you are attempting to do now, only with some actual proof.

I believe in science because I have experience it, and in the same way, I believed in what the Bible says because I have experienced it too, in fact billions of people have experienced the goodness of the Bible.What exactly is involved in "experiencing the bible"?

However, I do question how you read the Bible, is it with your head or is it with your heart?The head is the bit that thinks, and the heart is the bit that pumps blood, right? Since I'm not trying to move blood, I use my head. Seriously, though, think about it. When we say "think with your heart" we mean "follow your emotions and conscience". We're talking reason, here. We should be using our heads. Besides which, even if we are talking about emotions and consciousness, they don't lead me to believe in a god. I don't feel guilty that I don't believe in god. I don't feel empty because I don't believe in god.

I do not know how I can make you accept that God is just, nor can I explain why God allowed evil to ruin the world. Simply because I do not have the answers, but I wonder why scientist would rather believe in theories that were never proven or have any records that it actually happened ("Big Bang Theory", "Evolutions", etc.). Do you see partiality here?Don't worry about convincing me of that stuff. Let's start small. Let's start with you convincing me he exists, and work our way up. I'm afraid I DON'T see the partiality here. You've said "well, your scientific answer is no more plausible!". When did I offer a scientific answer? I've claimed very little here. I'm here to be convinced of the accuracy of these religious beliefs, not convert you to science.

[ September 24, 2002, 13:41: Message edited by: Judas ]

Judas (our Judas) says it was a "me or him" situation. If this is so, please provide a little more reasoning behind this (why would Jesus have led to Judas' death if he wasn't killed?). I agree with most of Judas' (again our Judas) other reasoning and arguments though. Ehm, and where does he say so? Jesus should die anyway but Judas had a free will, and chose the wrong path. It was not that Judas had no choice, it was not a me or him situation. However, if Judas had believed in Jesus, it would have become a "He (Jesus) INSTEAD of he (Judas) situation, but that goes for all who believe in him. And even after the betrayal of Judas, there was hope for him, if he changed and felt deeply sorry, but he did not.

But I see that you don't agree with the evolution-theory, but your problem is that there are so many different religions. You are true. But I don't think it's just a kind of gambling, choose on religion and hope you chose the right one. Look at the differences between the religions. The christian religion has one thing that no other religion has. In all religions you also have to do a part.... you have to deserve afterlife or in some religions what you become in your next life. And looking at the mess we all make of the earth, I'm glad that we don't have to deserve it by doing good. That makes the christian religion unique.

About proofs: When there would be a proof that the bible is true, there is also the proof that christian religion is true. When there would be a proof, why would we still have religious discussions here? There is no real proof that all in the bible is true. There are remarkable things in the bible, foretellings, parts that fortold written thousands of years before it happend, but it did happen and how could the writer have known that? Still there is no real proof, God doesn't come down to earth visible to show us all that he exists. God asks us to believe in him, and you can't believe in facts, for then it is not Believe but Knowledge. God asks Faith, and when you have strong Faith, you also have the Proof, for Hebrews 11 sais: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope, and certain of what we do not see." I know that's true, for I sometimes know sure that God exists en the Bible is true, but I can understand that it is hard for people without this strong faith to understand that feeling, and they think it is an easy answer, to all questions we can't answer.

The problem is that we are so smart nowadays that we want to prove everything, and when there is no prove, we don't believe it. This started during the industrial revolution it the late 19th century, when technology became better and better. This is why Darwin in 1890 came with his evolution-theory, and why Darwin's Theory was so poular. Human became proud because of their capabilities and possibilities and didn't wanted to be independent, with no one above them.

But the evolution-theory is vague, doesn't know what was before the big bang, it has no real beginning, so that makes it in my eyes a much worse theory then the one of the Creation by God.

Now imagine that there is a God who created the earth. When he is so powerfull that he can create this masterpiece, a puzzle of billions of smaller and larger pieces that all perfectly fit and together create a real piece of art, when that God is so great, then isn't it also kinda logical that we cannot fully understand Him? We want to understand all, and we can understand much, for we are the crown on the creation of the world, put above all other things on earth... but God is much greater then us so might it be possible that we cannot understand all of him, especially since we are weak and do the world much harm?

When you accept the fact that we as small little humans cannot fully understand the mighty great Creator, it becomes already much easier to believe in Him.

Actually Judas was sorry for what he had done. That's why gave the money right back to the Pharisees.

The part I don't get is why he goes off and kills himself. Was it the wrong kind of remorse? Or was Judas possessed? (Demon possession was nothing new in those times.) If he was possessed then he didn't willingly commit suicide. And of course God would forgive him. We all know while Jesus was dead He descended into Hell. What do you think happened when Jesus went down into Hell (besides kicking Satan's tail all over the place)? Any insight from anyone?

Xaelifer, of course Big B talks about religion. He was asked a religious question. It only follows.

Very condescending of you to claim he's brainwashed. Have you met him? Or do you just assume that everyone who disagrees with you has something mentally wrong with him?

What exactly is the topic here? Do you all want to hear proofs for the existence of God, the authenticity of the Bible, the doctrines of salvation, the validity of Christianity, or what? There are so many paltry attacks going on here that I'm not sure which one takes precedence.

Naturally you see the old pattern. Christians stick up for what they believe and the atheist and agnostic crowd call them stupid.

I'll tell you this much: An impartial reader coming to this discussion would quickly conclude that Big B and the Christians treat their fellow human beings much better. That in itself is a pretty strong argument for Christianity.

To all the christians of SP:

Open a bible (no seriously, get one and open it)
go to the first book, you know the one about the old pantheon with 12 gods, you know Iskur, Ninti.

...

No I´m not talking about Genesis here, the biblebook before that one.
Oh wait, silly me. The church removed that one.

Alright then we go to Genesis, I´m sure everyone has that in the bible. Search for the name Lillith, yeah Lillith, Adam´s first wife? Cant find that one too? Oh, well probably ripped out too

Well, then lets search for the biblebook Fillipus, yeah in the new testament, oh wait, has been removed as well!!

Point is: Dont follow a book which has been ripped apart by the church, as far as I know 12 books have been removed during 500 - 1500.

Arise as did the gods Ninti and Ishkur

[ September 24, 2002, 16:20: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Sorry for polluting this religious topic, but I just can't let certain scientific misconceptions go.

That evolution occurs is a fact and not a theory; the only theories are as to how it happens.

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory, and also nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Morgoth: Using Sumerian mythological deities and people can hardly counter the validity of the bible. Your point is just as hard to prove as proving the factuality of the sourches of the bible.

[ September 24, 2002, 16:50: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

Big B, you compare the relationship between men and God to a shepherd and sheep? So then, God possesses us, we are his creatures? We are then one of two things: either slaves to his will above our own by way of desire to be rewarded or creatures of freedom that are punished for insubordination. Is this the way of a supreme being? Bow to my will, acknowledge my power, have "faith" in me, or I shall with all the power in my breast smite thee I've never smote before?- why? Is he a jealous God? A malevolent God? What need has he to punish mankind? What does it satisfy in him? Is he subject to the emotions we consider flaws (i.e. anger, hatred, envy)? Then why when we "betray" him must he do us harm? How are we doing him harm? Is it even possible for us to do him harm? If so, he's not perfect.

a question posed: if God were vile, and we knew from birth that we would be rewarded in the afterlife for doing evil acts, and we were raised on this very notion of a cutthroat world, and we had very little conception of pity or remorse, would you still be pious? That is, would you still believe in God and worship him? Or would you have rebelled against God and become a heretic?

Amon-Ra

[ September 24, 2002, 17:00: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

Mother T,

I can't really answer about the second chance that you have asked about. But probably this might help. This is what I believe might happen, if judgement day come and we are alive, probably, we might get a last chance (we may already have several opportunities). But if we are death, that is beyond me already. I said this because it was never mentioned if there will still be people living or the human race is simply wipe-out. But definitely, the judgement day (the event) was mentioned in Revelations. All I can assure you is that it is going to be a fair trail.

BTW it's nior not noir. Just four letters but it has a completely different meaning. "nior" is my shortcut for junior, while "noir" means black in French (or Italian, though my pendulum sways toward the "F" one). :)

Amon-ra: God will not smite you because you will not obey him or do not believe in him. You will simply be omitted from his protection. Therefore, you are the one allowing yourself to be omitted. It is not God who is punishing you. You will be punishing yourself.

A shepherd keeps the herd together. A definition of herd is "a group of people usually having a common bond." Those allowing God to shepherd them through life have their faith in God to bond them.

[ September 24, 2002, 18:36: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

"God is good. That's not just an adjective. God is goodness and all of the subcatergories of good like love, beauty, truth, etc. When you reject goodness/God and do what is wrong, you are exiling yourself from God. Total, complete, permanent separation from God is what Hell is."

huh? God is goodness it self? I doubt it, goodness is a personality, if it is so, God is praticaly just a feeling of our's, not a being as the bible make it out to be. Besides, how can you call someone who floods the earth killing almost everything and number of other bloody things "good"?

and anyways, the bible says is all-can-do, then why did he really need to force 10 disasters on egypt to force them to let the israelis go, when he could just teleport the israelis to israel? Why did he even CREATE humans when he could just see to the future and see how evil they've become?

[ September 24, 2002, 19:28: Message edited by: Ray192 ]

No, goodness is not a feeling.

As for teleporting people around the planet, who am I to know why he sent plagues. Perhaps they led more of the people to reform their lives than a simple disappearance would have.

And as for the flood, death is not always evil, and because God allows it or causes it does not mean he is evil.

And yes, he knew the future and what mankind would become. We're not evil. We can be sanctified.

first off this is not truely a discussion about religions this is a christian vs atheist and agnostic.
Now I'm an agnostic. I say show it to me and I'll believe it. And when I say show it to me I don't mean a book. there are planty of inconsistencies in the bible, but there are inconsistencies everywhere. The Bible of today is not the bible as it was written. It's been corrupted by the church. Now if christianity is right that means the other 70% of the world is wrong because only about 30% of the worlds population is christian. The christian faith tells us that if we don't believe in the christian god we're going to hell, so in that means that 70% of the earths population is going to hell? I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Oh and I hate to burst your lil christian bubble but contrary to popular belief christianity is not monotheistic its polytheistic. The Devil is pretty much an evil god and angels and demons are lesser gods. Christianity calls Jesus the son of god, wouldn't that make him a god? If christianity was introduced to a catholic with simple name changes he'd call it a pagan polytheistic religion. So don't get all holier than though. respect everyones beliefs and accept them for what they are, beliefs.

Shralp: On one hand you're claiming some of this stuff is condescending, and on the other you've said that what we say is unimportant.

You've accused us of calling the Christians "stupid" because they stick up for what they believe in. I haven't. I have certainly suggested that some of the arguments put forward are illogical, due to some of the obvious fallacies they contain. I haven't personally attacked the authors of the arguments, though. I'm not out to make anyone look small or silly, here. I just want someone to put a convincing, coherent argument for the existence of god forward.

You say that these posts suggest that the Christians treat their fellow humans better, and that this is, itself, some sort of convincing argument for the existence of god. Well, firstly I disagree that we've done much mistreating, here. I see it rather the other way around. People have been demanding I believe, but they have been offering poor, inconsistent, or illogical arguments as to why. Surely I'm at least entitled to a valid explanation? Secondly, even if the Christians DID treat their fellow humans better, it wouldn't prove that an all powerful being existed. Why do you think it would?

Everyone: As for the Judas argument, let's leave it where it is for now. I agree with some of the points put forward. He may have been a nasty man. That I've taken his name may offend some... I guess when I chose the name I didn't count on such a forceful reaction. For a version of "his side of the story", check out the play JCS. I guess it's a good example of a "film noir" (no, not you nior, even if that's what MotherT calls you) based on the story. I'm not claiming it's biblically accurate... but then, we're talking about a book that was dodgy to start with, and only got worse when the church started to moderate it.

BTA: Thanks for setting that straight - you saved me the trouble.

Headbanger: Just because something is unique, it doesn't mean that the message it put's foward is true. That Christianity holds promises that other religions don't doesn't prove that God exists. It doesn't even suggest it.

The problem is that we are so smart nowadays that we want to prove everything, and when there is no prove, we don't believe it.I'm not seeing this as a problem. Would you like to be sent to jail with no proof that you ever did anything wrong? Even if the entire jury BELIEVES you you did?

The theory of evolution is not vague... it is quite developed, and complete. But as I said, I'm not trying to convert anyone to science, here. However, even if the theory of evolution WAS vague, that's not any kind of argument that god exists, and created the earth, is it now? There could just as easily be another alternative that doesn't involve a god.

When you accept the fact that we as small little humans cannot fully understand the mighty great Creator, it becomes already much easier to believe in Him. Have some respect for your own powers of reasoning. The human race is capable of fathoming some pretty amazing stuff. I don't think I'd find it hard to understand that there WAS ACTUALLY A GOD if there was something credible that suggested it.

[ September 25, 2002, 00:28: Message edited by: Judas ]

Shadow Assassin: Poly vs. Monotheism is hardly the big picture here. The bubble remains intact.

This thread has been filled with questions and answers. Judas has asked questions, and others have had answers, albeit not to Judas' satisfaction, but answers are answers nonetheless.
So I don't think anyone is getting "holier than thou." Everyone is expressing their interpretations to the best of their knowledge.
Not agreeing with someone doesn't mean that they're being disrespectful. What is a debate without opposition.

Judas, Christians believe what they believe out of faith. Faith simply doesn't seem to be enough for some people, and that just can't be helped. That is why miracles were performed. To show physical proof. Those miracles are just not seen anymore in the way of spectacular and obvious events. I have been partial to religious "miracles" myself. Those are what help me to believe.

Noone is saying that the bible is a perfect translation. No language can be perfectly translated into any other language. If you want to investigate the authenticity of the bible, search for some archaelogical texts.
Here is one link that might be helpful.
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

You ask for physical proof that God exists. I can't offer you any other physical proof. But if you truly wish to find out the answer to your questions, maybe you will get your answer in a way that helps you to understand.

[ September 24, 2002, 23:22: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

I think I am beginning to grasp Big B's point (about the free will argument). Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is basically that:

The ONLY way you will be sent to hell for eternity is if you completely turn away from God, correct? If you sin, you will still be forgiven and go to heaven as long as you accept God, correct? So if you have free will you can choose whether or not you want to do this, if you choose not to, you're not going to heaven. That kinda clears it up a little bit.

Now, what about all the people who, as Mother T said, did not have the opportunity to know about God, and were basically good people?

Headbanger: I think you misinterpreted my post concerning the Judas bit. The Judas that posts on these boards made an argument that the Judas from the bible was in a "me or him" situation and betrayed Jesus because Jesus would have led to his, and his other followers, death. I was just asking him to provide support for that argument.

Response to Headbanger's other post:
I don't believe in Purgatory, or most of the other teachings of the Catholic Church. I saw a movie called stigmata, in which there was a discovery of a "lost testament of Christ, which was Jesus' instructions on how to continue his church after his death".
In this lost testament Jesus told his followers "The Kingdom of God inside you and all around you. Not in buildings of wood or stone."

They claimed at the end that, although the story in the movie was fiction, these lost testaments did in fact exist, and were discovered in a Cave in Nag Hamani (near where they found the Dead Sea scrolls) in 1954. It was also known as the Gospel of St. Thomas.

Anyway, that kind of mirrored my belief, that the Catholic Church puts too many rules and restrictions on your relationship with God, and on salvation. You had your venerial sins, your moral sins, your purgatory, your restrictions on eating meat on Fridays (which during the fifties or sixties was limited to Lent), etc, etc.

I don't want someone telling me how to define my relationship with God, or to say you need to do this at this time, you need to do that on this day, you can't do that on these days. I was raised a Catholic, and turned away from it because of these unweildy restrictions.
IF I believe, it should be fairly simple, and I should LOVE God, and be happy and joyful about the relationship, not be afraid of him, or worried that I did or didn't do something.

Blackthorne: Feel free to add your $.02! Evolution has always seemed kind of strange to me, but maybe I do not fully understand the concept. For example, how can a creature suddenly spout deformations that enable it to survive better (such as a long middle finger that allows it to reach into cracks and search for food)? Wouldn't the species die out before they all had a chance to grow thier fingers long enough? Evolution is a "survival process" that take place over thousands or millions of years. If I'm being attacked by predators, I can't just spout wings one day and fly to get away from them. It would take a really long time to grow these wings, or this long finger, or whatever, and if I depended on them for survival, I'd be dead long before I grew them. I do agree that species change over really long period of time but it seems kind of strange to me that this would enable them to survive (given the length of time involved).

Judas, I agree that if you believe something you should be able to defend it in a rational and logical way. I do not and will not blindly follow anything, I am an intelligent person, and am capable (most of the time!) of rational thought.

[ September 24, 2002, 23:45: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

"He knows what path we will take, but that is not the same as saying “He makes us take that path.” He makes us do nothing. He just knows the outcome."

But if he already knows the outcome, and he already knows who will be saved and who will be damned, who will accept him and who will reject him, as you say, and he can´t be wrong, then we still have no free will. The people whom he knows will be saved *will* be saved, and the people whom he knows will be damned *will* be damned. Neither has a say in it. Neither has any real choice. There is no choice. God can´t be wrong. If he *knows* beforehand that you will "reject him" and be sent to everlasting hell, you *will*. There is nothing you can actually do about it. You have no real choice. If God does indeed know the outcome, then you have no free will. he argument that free will is given to us by God is thus invalid. The very existence of God denies its possibility.

If God already knew, beforehand, and with no chance of being wrong about it, that Judas would betray Christ, could Judas still have chosen not to do it?

I think Mother T's first post in this thread is a beauty. Its a topic which I've always been mystified about. How are those people undeserving of "salvation?"

This is not an attack or whatever, I just wish that someone will answer Mother T's first post...

It's easy to claim, that god is responsible for all evil. If god is responsible, you can make a lot of evil things and say it's gods fault.
It's easy to quote the Bible, one can use it as an instrument to stop talking, stop thinking.
Hell can be this world, it depends on the people living in this world.

Nutrimat - The idea of "survival of the fittest" is not a very accurate representation of evolution by natural selection.

It's not really about either survive or die, it's more about small changes that allow for more offspring/greater offspring survival than your peers.

This, as you can imagine can be many different things. Perhaps the change allows for the better exploitation of a food source giving you more energy for procreation than your peers. Perhaps it makes you more attractive to the opposite sex, so you get more of the girls/guys. Perhaps it makes you/your offspring more resistant to disease. Perhaps it enables you to better avoid predators and thus make it more likely you'll have the chance to procreate. Whatever.

The point is that when a beneficial mutation occurs, it doesn't mean that you couldn't survive without it, just that you are in some way better at making babies :)

Now that's the prevailing theory at least :)

[ September 25, 2002, 01:16: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

My discussion is based on the Christian religion (although may apply to others).

A substancial part of the Christian religion is faith. Faith is defined as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

The Bible is part of the Christian religion and as such is subject to faith in its acceptance (to a point, in that one should question its validity in terms of how it has been translated / altered).

To simply say "I will not believe unless you prove it to me" cuts out the line of debate on religion.

I think that for the purposes of the discussion on religion, it is pointless to say that I will not believe without proof / logical evidence because that is what Faith is about which is prevelant in most religions with a god.

Instead I feel that the particulars of a religion should be debated. I think for the purposes of discussion, it is also necessary to put more definition behind what we mean by a phrase such as "free will" (I do think that Hermit09 defined this beautifully).

I personally think that "free will" is merely an illusion as everything is predetermined. That being, I do think it is an illusion that is of utmost importance. What are the consequences if we are resigned to our fate?

[ September 25, 2002, 01:33: Message edited by: Mother T ]

Mother T... yes, it cuts it short there. By your definition, it impossible to prove faith. I've been waiting for someone to put that forward, rather than attempting to actually provide proof. Thankyou.

You realise, of course, that by definition, faith can't actually rest on something such as the bible, if the bible is at all accurate. You can't have faith and facts at the same time. If the bible is accurate, is material, and is telling you god exists, you can't have faith in god... only knowledge. Does knowledge of god still get you into heaven, or does it HAVE to be faith?

Can you tell me what the difference between a "faithful position" and a "baseless position" is? Interesting that the word "faith" has a positive connotation, and the word "baseless" a negative one, no?

You feel the particulars of the religions should be debated? To what end?

Yes... the topic of free will is a difficult one, isn't it? If I'm purely physical, surely the laws of physics and biology can explain my every action. Let's say, then, that my body is purely mechanical / biological, but my soul provides free will. What is my soul made of? Does it have mechanics or laws that can explain how it will behave? Does my soul have a soul? A sort of meta-soul, so to speak? How is it constructed? How about the soul of a soul of a soul... etc? I'm not totally decided on the topic of determination yet (I don't have enough proof). But I agree, if everything is determined, free will is still a critical illusion. If you truly believed everything was determined, you wouldn't function properly, wouldn't be able to make decisions, etc. There would be no such thing as a bad or wrong choice, just THE choice (which isn't ACTUALLY a choice, now, is it?).

More from me some other time.

[ September 25, 2002, 02:15: Message edited by: Judas ]

I see it as God sees the future and knows the future. That's why when He said He would send Jesus, He knew He wasn't going to end up putting His "foot" in His "mouth". He had the right to say it, because He knew it would happen. When Jesus says He will come again, you better believe He's going to be coming again.

Now God looks into the future and knows that you will choose (you still CHOOSE) to follow Him or reject Him. His knowing does not change what you choose. Why then did God create us? Only to know that one of His angels would rebel. Get kicked out of Heaven. And corrupt God's creation just to spite Him? Why? Because there is more God knows that we don't. Great and wonderful things are in store for those that follow Him. And if you don't follow Him, His protection of you from Satan is withheld. And what does Satan choose to do with you? Take you down with him!

3 main parties are involved here: God and His angels, Satan and his demons, and us, children of God, His creation. God wants all of us to choose to follow Him. (Time out: If God wants us to follow Him, wouldn't it even make more sense for Him to do as you say "predetermine" all of us to follow Him? But no, God is not a tyrant, and we are not robots. We have a say in the matter.) After all the only other choice is to follow Satan. This may sound harsh. It says all other religions are false, and to some that is blasphemy. But that's how it is (from a Christian standpoint). You have to go back and realize there was a time when these other religions didn't exist. Why then where they created? To lead people away from God, the true God. Satan has done about every trick in the book to tear us away from God. It's become a vendetta of his, a sick hobby. It is a sad and horrible thing to know that many believe that their religion is right, and yet they are being deceived.

Do you think Satan finds it sad? Do you think he cares? Hell no! Its a sick joke to him. We are just a tool to him. A tool to get back at God. When we are of no use to him he tosses us aside like garbage. God does no such thing. God accepts us despite whatever we've done. All we have to do is repent and follow Him. Satan even tries to get a hold on Christians. He tries to make then either too complacent and sit their like a lump on a log and do nothing for Christ, or he'll try to lead one aside to a path of fanaticism. The ones who holla' and scream and get all red-faced damning people to Hell. That just turns people off. It does more harm than good. You may argue that some of what I have posted turns people off. But I post sincerely and I know that all of you can CHOOSE not to go to Hell. There is a difference. I'm not here to point the finger at you and condemn you, I'm here to try to get you to see that you are being deceived and that there is something you can do about it.

Because when its all said and done and you're stuck in eternity with a fallen angel who doesn't give a damn about you and is pissed off that his time is up and he is forever bound. Do you think he is going to be a pleasant "roomate"? You think life can be hell now, you ain't seen nothing yet. But nor should you have to. As I have been saying, you have a choice.

And let's say that you're right and I am all other Christians are wrong. We die, and that's it, we just die. Boring don't you think. But ok, we just die. Nothing happens. It doesn't matter which side is right or wrong.

But let's say, Christians are right. Man you've just made a big gamble. You are screwed if you chose against God. Welcome to eternity with a pissed off fallen angel. Too bad you can't die, you're dead already. Have fun with infinite torture sessions. Too bad you didn't give God more merit when you had the chance.

Not cool, huh?

Ok let's get off something so grim for a second and try to answer Mother T's and Slim's question about people who never had a chance to know about God during their lifetime. Because of physical seperation or something that limits their mental capacity. (A quick side note: I worked with mentally challenged adults this summer and let me tell you, there can be no ends to their love and compassion sometimes. They are great Christians, and many have the capacity to not only tell you about God, but I was convinced that my 70 year old mentally challenged camper knew more about the bible then me, having many versus memorized. Now that is amazing. Little signs of God's coming kingdom, here in everyday life.) Here is what I once thought:

Personally, I cannot imagine people who never heard about God, never had a remote opportunity of hearing about God to even make a yes or no decision, of going to hell. Then again, the only way to heaven is through Jesus. My answer to this problem: Jesus intervenes for these people and they do in fact go to heaven. Why do I think this? Jesus came to establish a link with sinners and God, and died for all sinners on the cross only to rise again in 3 days. For everyone who has heard this, they either believe it or think it's whack. But for those who haven't for whatever reason must still go to heaven. It would not be fair if they didn't. Same concepts with babies and small children. Not being able to make the choice either because you can't comprehend it or it's never been presented to you is not something these people can be held accountable for.

Well, notice I said that is what I "once" thought. Good ol' Mat reminded me of Romans 2:20 which states:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have clearly been seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

Through nature, it is evident that God exists. None are without excuse.

After a lot of thought here is my current, modified belief:

Personally, I cannot imagine people who never heard about God, never had a remote opportunity of hearing about God to even make a yes or no decision, of going to hell. Then again, the only way to heaven is through Jesus. My possible answer to this problem (or at least the best one I can come up with based on what I know and hold to be true): Jesus intervenes for these people. Perhaps when they die, they are confronted by Jesus, who explains to them who He is and reminds them of the world they lived they in, and how through nature, Gods existence is known. But He would let them know that He is God. Then they can choose. (Because if through nature God is known, then which god? Did not the Native Americans have "gods" based on nature? But they were physically seperated from Christians. They could not have known at the time about the Christian God. This is the suggested point of clarification.) Jesus came to establish a link with sinners and God, and died for all sinners on the cross only to rise again in 3 days. For everyone who has heard this, they either believe it or think it's whack. And what of the people who spread to the far corners of the earth before Jesus came along, and have never heard of God because their forefathers neglected to pass the knowledge down? What exactly did Jesus do for three days when He was down in Hell? A perfect opportunity to preach and set those who would follow Him free. Proving yet again His dominion over Satan. Not being able to make the choice either because you can't comprehend it or it's never been presented to you is not something these people can be held accountable for -- until they are given an opportunity to choose. And then they are held accountable for their choice. The specifics on when they are given the choice are not detailed, those mentioned above are my best guess. However, God knows if you've had the chance to choose before or not. So this is not a "second chance" for those that rejected God during their lives. Only a "chance" for those who had none.

God is fair and just. It is Satan who would have you believe otherwise. The reality is Satan isn't the bogeyman, and he's not a guy in a red suit. Although if you think these things then he would have you keep on thinking that way. After all if a potential threat is seen as non-existent or made fun of in a light way, it disguises the fact that it is indeed a serious threat. Quite simply put Satan doesn't want you on to him. It's time to be on to him. Be on your guard against Satan, not against God.

[ September 25, 2002, 03:22: Message edited by: Big B ]

B, you sorta didn't respond to this one:
I am a person who has devoted their life to furthering the education and development of third world countries. I am an inherently good person. I have devoted 40 years of my life to helping those less fortunate than myself and have given all my money to the cause of helping those who are suffering from hunger, thirst and malnutrition. I attended church when I was young but I felt that it would be a better use of my time and I could help more people if I did not have to take time to go to church and work on my faith. So my question is will I go to heaven or suffer in hell? What happens to me? If personal salvation is available through Jesus, and this person has obviously "rejected" the curch in order to "save" many other people, shouldn't these selfless acts allow passage to heaven?

That one wasn't clear Slim.

John 14

(Jesus speaking to His disciples)

"Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going."

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"

Jesus said to him, " I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

Did the person in the above example, know Jesus? Did they repent? Where they a Christian? Then yes. If not, then no.

Keep in mind:

Ephesians 2:8-9

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast."

I think that a theme that is arising is that not everyone believes the same thing.

The church has one stand on beliefs.
The bible has another way of looking at things.
Another denomination has another way of looking at things.

Which is correct and what happens if you pick a loser. Could you potentially go to hell?

The choice was obvious as you only have to look at the world to see God, yet you didnt pick a winner.

I would assume that most denominations would simply say, okay, look, you believed in God and that is enough. So if you wanted to, you could invent your own form of Christianity where you believe in God / Jesus and help others - that should be acceptable or simply believe in God / Jesus and do nothing.

I think the standpoint of some people is when judgement day comes, everyone will be given a second chance (and why not - God is forgiving) so really, so long as when the time comes (and you'll know about it) you chose the side of Go(o)d and not (D)Evil, you'll be right.

[ September 25, 2002, 04:28: Message edited by: Mother T ]

Okay, i have decided on something.

I will go and get my hands on both the Bible as well as the Apogryphical (Spelling?) books, and read them. After THAT I am going to post my impressions.

Results can be expected in the next few weeks or so. Or possibly tomorrow if I get inspired.

Ara
(Who just realized that the teacher she has a major crush on will be teaching her first class tomorrow.... eeeeek!)

Trust me, getting inspired about the bible is hard.

goddamnit BTA: you keep slipping in to correct the evolutionary misunderstandings before i get the chance! :grr: ;)

nutrimat: it was exactly that misconception of how natural selection operates that i addressed in my topic! see: http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=002331 "evolution by natural selection is directed towards specific goals" (it is NOT, by the way)

mother t: individuals (even of the same denomination) will give differrent answers to your question on "whether believing in the 'correct' religion will allow you to jump the queue of purgatory". personally, i think the queue-jumping is entirely dependent on how you've lived your life. for me, having a strong faith (in whatever religion that might be) helps give your life meaning (helping others whenever the opportunity arises) and preventing your spirit from becoming restless (in this i mean that i no longer find that i'm 'looking' for something to change my life). i'm not looking to convert others because otherwise i fear they'll got to hell/spend longer in purgatory, but would try because it'll make their lives happier.

as i've already said, i'm quite liberal, and sometimes describe myself as a zen-christian (note that zen is not necessarily connected to bhuddism). i've also spent alot (sic) of time studying the samurai, and try to follow bushido- living as if i'm already dead/about to die anyway (though i obviously don't serve a particular lord, rather i serve 'people in general'). i interpret modern bushido as an ever-present awareness to help others when as soon as a situation presents itself, as no-one knows what tomorrow will bring. this could be something as mundane as noticing an elderly person as soon as they get on a bus so that you're the first to give up your seat. you never know what'll happen when a life-or-death situation arises, so it's good to train yourself to act selflessly so that it'll be second nature if/when it does, and you don't spend valuble moments weighing up whether your life is more important than theirs or vice versa.

anyone else base their faith on a combination of religions or beliefs?

[ September 25, 2002, 15:10: Message edited by: the god ]

Uh, Judas, I clearly did not say that there was any proof for the existence of God in the way this thread was developing. Oh, and since it seems that you've got a particular question (What is the proof for the existence of God?), let me ask if you've read Thomas Aquinas's four proofs. They are not, of course, scientific proof, as we cannot exactly recreate God in a lab. They are philosophical proofs. A more convincing (and accessible) series of proofs is provided in Peter Kreeft's book Fundamentals of the Faith. I'd summarize them here for you, but I don't have my copy at work.

And you'll notice that I did not offer names of posters who were being abusive. You didn't attack people directly, at least.

Shadow Assasin, welcome back. Please provide me with evidence that the Bible has been corrupted. If you have "original versions" or something, I know a guy in Rome with a funny hat who would like to see them.

You need to read up on the nature of Christ and Satan before you make such claims as "Christianity is polytheistic." Your understanding is a bit simplistic, but since it's a religion you don't practice that's understandable. And perhaps add a book on salvation theories since I don't think any major Christan denomination actually teaches that those who have never heard about Christianity automatically go to Hell. In short: welcome back; everything you just said is wrong. :1eye:

[ September 25, 2002, 17:30: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Shralp, I'd just like to point out that Immanuel Kant (a christian) systematically showed the flaws of each major proof of the existence of a god and each major proof that god did not exist that was known at the time. No other proof since his time has ever been given much credence in the philosophical community. Kant deals with the 4 proofs given by Aquinas. Kant's conclusion is that there is no proof that god exists nor is there proof that god does not exist and therefore it is equally reasonable to believe there is a god as there is to believe there is not one. Kant was devoted to logic, basing his entire ethical position upon it and his work on the issue has settled the debate on whether there is a "proof" regarding the existence/non-existence of a god for most of the philosophical community. That's why most analytic philosophers today don't bother with attempting to find a "proof" one way or the other.

Earlier someone admitted that you can't disprove the existence of a god but that you could disprove the existence of the traditional Judeo-Christian God which is normally defined as omnipotent, omniscent, and omnibenevolent. I believe the two arguments asserted as disproving the existence of the Juedeo-Christian God are (1) the argument that free will and the traditional Judeo-Christian God are mutually exclusive and (2) The problem of Evil.
(1)
I believe that the argument that man can not have free will if the traditional Judeo-Christian God exists has been addressed fairly well above. I'd also like to point out that it might be possible for a being to be omniscent (all knowing) and not know the future. How so? If the future in not knowable an all knowing being might still know everything that is possible to be known and it is no more fair to criticize something for not knowing something which it is impossible to know then it is fair to criticize something for not being able to do something impossible (such as create a spherical cube.) Just as the inability of the traditional Judeo-Christian God to create a spherical cube does not mean that it is not omnipotent the inability to know something which can't possibly be known does not mean the God is not omniscent. In order for there to be knowledge at the very least you have to have a true justified belief (plus something to get around the Gettier problem.) In order for a proposition to be true it must have happened. If a future proposition has not yet happened it does not have truth value and therefore it is not knowable. So, I take it that a Christian might choose to argue that God knows everything that is knowable (is omniscent) but doesn't know the future. That's another way around the argument against God's existence though I don't think many Christians will take it. The arguments above seem to overcome the atheist objections anyways.

(2)
The problem of Evil is more vexing in my opinion. The difficulty with it is that not all of the evil in the world can be lain at the feet of man. So, the claim that all evil originated with man and not God is thoroughly uncompelling. We can see that there is a lot of pointless, needless suffering in the world. It seems peculiar to me to blame the birth of a child with Tay-Sachs on man and free will. Wouldn't the traditional Judeo-Christian God have made a world where there was no Tay-Sachs? Isn't Tay-Sachs simply the embodiment of needless suffering? Or, if you want to step outside of the human realm, what about natural disasters which slowly and painfully destroy wildlife populations? If the destruction is necessary as you might argue then why couldn't it be done in a more humane manner? Couldn't an omnipotent, omniscent, and omnibenevolent God found a way to make this world, if just by the smallest fraction, a tiny bit more kind and humane? It seems difficult to me to say that the world coldn't be just a fraction better, and if it could be, why isn't it? I don't think everything can be blamed on man.

One might argue that the world is as perfect as possible. That's not to say that everything in it is perfect of course, but the world as a whole is as perfect as it could be given the goals of God -- man with free will. This is a rather courageous way to bite the bullet in my opinion but I find it to be thoroughly uncompelling. Another possibility I suppose is to try to blame everything on man and free will, I find this unplausible.

There's a few things that have also occurred to me over the last few days whil reading this entertaining thread. One, why do Christians want a proof that there is a God? Faith is the central tenet of Christianity. I can proove plenty of mathematical equations but I have no faith in them -- I have knowledge. If you could prove God existed you would no longer have faith in it, you would know it. Just like I don't have faith that 2+2=4, I know it, I believe that proof of the existence of God would destroy faith.

And for the agnostics and atheists (I'm an agnostic myself) I don't understand why some of you seem so obsessed with being atagonistic. This isn't meant for most of the posts here but some of them and it's also something I've noticed at other times in my life. It's almost like with some there is a need to proselytize akin to the need of the most devout Mormon. I can understan the Mormon wanting to proselytize if she thinks she is actually helping others by doing so, but why do many atheists and agnostics feel the need to destroy faith in others? What I speak of is different than engaging in a well meaning debate on the subject just for the joy of doing so, but I find that often many atheists and agnostics are out to destroy faith more than enjoy an intellectual debate and I don't understand that desire.

As for me, I don't think that it is possible to prove the existence or non-existence of a god or of God. I simply find that I don't have faith that there is one, but I wish that I did.

To address the above, I (an atheist) am holding the same zeal as any devoutly religious person. I do not wish to antagonize without cause, only to spurn debate- the only problem I have with religion is its static nature. It is such a reductionist point of view, of which there is no logical proof, that it often hinders true attempts to find answers.

If we were to say, hey, these are dinosaur bones, look at the structure, I wonder how and during what period these creatures lived, let us study their plausible habits and see why they went extinct- a christian would say, "That's a useless study, those bones were placed there to deceive you and test your faith. There are/were no such things as dinosaurs. Have faith in God."

In almost every attempt to find answers about life, to better understand the world in which we live, the christian world retraces the answer to "God works in mysterious ways, let us not question, but only praise him for his glory."

I might not have the answers, but what unnerves me is that neither do you. For you to say that you "know", when you don't, is a lie. You might have faith in a God, you might truly believe that something is true, but that does NOT make it so. I could very well believe in martians, but that does not make them real.

So fine, believe as you may, to each his own. But I am sickened by the attempts of organized religions to simply dismiss any possibilities of a different answer than their own as heresy. As an old philosopher said, "An unexamined life is not worth living." To go throughout life simply acting and reacting, without probing deeper than the surface, is to live the life of an automaton. To be blunt, a person in this position could almost be replaced by a well-built android. Our capacity to reason, to attempt to understand, in and of itself encourages us to ask questions. As another wise man once said, to paraphrase, "A conclusion is simply where someone decided to stop thinking."

Once the assumption that God exists is held as true, all possible occurances, or truths about the world can be traced back to his doing(i.e. Dinosaur bones = him testing your faith.). The only problem with this is the opening line- once the ASSUMPTION that God exists is held to be true. Without that as-of-yet unfounded assumption, there can be no answers by this method.

As I said, I might not have all the answers, but at least I'm not so readily willing to stop looking. I have drawn no conclusions, because there is nothing to draw them upon. I'm not afraid of what I don't know. It is my driving force, my courage. "Faith", in my book, is the lack (out of fear, irrationality, whatever) to desire to look for answers. If I'm damned for this to go to hell into the clutches of Satan, so be it.

I'm not about to not live my life. I'd rather burn in hell.

Amon-Ra

Thanks Laches. Kant is wonderful.
I have a free will. And maybe god is watching me from above, shakin' his head, thinking: No Oblate, don't post again. ;)
I belief, that people are responsible for their own deeds.

John 9

And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.

And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?"

Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me, as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

When He said this he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, and said to him, "Go wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated "Sent"). And so he went away and washed, and came back seeing.

Ok so here we have the disciples asking if it is the blind man's fault that he is or blind, or his parents? Both due to sin. Jesus answers saying it was so the works of God could be shown. At first glance this seems like the man was made blind by God because God is all powerful and can just do what He wants. (Well He is, but He does not do anything that is not fair.) That's not exactly what I think is going on here. Man was seperated from God when he sinned back at Eden. The reason was because the devil had successfully tempted man. All throughout the bible there is talk that about the "world" and "worldly" things that are bad. God did create a perfect world. It was Satan who lead man aside and corrupted God's creation. God is working on a new kingdom, one in which His once loyal, now fallen angel won't be able to corrupt.

But the question is, why does God allow Satan to have a limited authority on earth? Consider the first two chapters of Job (actually consider the whole book, I think I will reread this one soon). God allows Satan to cause harm to Job and his family, saying it is in Satan's power to do so. However, God does put limits on what Satan can do. (i.e. Satan isn't allowed to flat out kill Job.) When all these bad things befall Job he questions why God would allow this to happen to him (Job was a devout follower of God.) In the end, and after a long debate, Job realizes that he must trust God and His sovreignity. Job can't understand all of God's ways. Job admits that if he cannot even understand God's ways in the physical realm, how can he even begin to understand God's ways in the spiritual realm! Job's sincere repentance and newfound wisdom pleased God and proved Satan was wrong (Satan was trying to prove to God that if he smote Job, Job would turn his back on God for good.) Job was rewarded with double of what he lost to begin with and was greatly blessed.

"So that the works of God might be displayed in him." - something to think about.

Luke 4

And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days; and when they had ended, He became hungry.

And the devil said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."

And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'" (Jesus qoutes from Deuteronomy 8:3)

And he lead Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, "I will give You all this domain and its glory, for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You worship me, it shall all be Yours."

And Jesus answered and said to him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.'" (Jesus qoutes the second commandment.)

And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; for it is written, 'He will give His angels charge concerning You to guard You,' and 'On their hands they will bear You up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'" (Satan qoutes scripture too - when it fits his needs - Psalms 91:11, 12.)

And Jesus said to him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Jesus qoutes Deuteronomy 6:16.)

And when the devil finished every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time.

I love this passage (there's a similiar account in Matthew.) The one man Satan can't successfully tempt - Jesus. I especially like temptation #2, "Tell you what 'Jesus'. If you worship me and prove that I am more powerful than You. I give this world back to you. I'll pack up my bags and leave humans alone. No more tempting. What do you say?" - the devil. Notice the devil assumes that God can't at any moment take his "authortity" away.

Jesus of course lays the smack down on him. The devil thinks he Has an advantage over God by leading His creation astray. God thinks otherwise. He has a plan, a new kingdom. And you are invited. God has seen that man can be tempted. Those who want to follow Him can. And those who don't - don't, but they must accept the consequences. Why would you say no? Why would you let yourselves be deceived by someone who doesn't give a crap about you? Why wouldn't you stay under the protection of someone who does?

Have faith. Job's faith paid off. The blind man's faith paid off. The thief on the cross next to Jesus - his faith paid off. So can yours.

Yeah God did create a perfect world but we messed things up by choosing for the devil.
Then he send Jesus to help us and the ones who believe will be saved. But that's all thanks to God he gives us the believe. Now you will say so who doesn't believe cant help it. But that ain't thrue you still have your own resposibillity you still have a choiceif you don't believe you choose against God. no choice is also a choice
and if you do believe your saved because God wanted to you to be saved and you might not be rewarded in this live and you might get a lot of trouble in this live but a eternal treasure awaits you

Why would you say no? Why would you let yourselves be deceived by someone who doesn't give a crap about you? Why wouldn't you stay under the protection of someone who does?"

Have faith. Job's faith paid off. The blind man's faith paid off. The thief on the cross next to Jesus - his faith paid off. So can yours.
a) Because, Big B, I don't believe I'm being deceived by any 'Satan', nor do I believe I am under the protection of any 'God'. I don't believe in either. I have no 'faith'.

b) All of your examples of the benefits of faith are from the Bible, which is circulatory and can't be substantiated. It is essentially the "because I say so" argument. I give you two doors, A and B. Choose A. Why? [Proceeds to tell a story about all the people who've gone through A and prospered.] That's why. True, you've never met any of these people, and because they're dead (that being an unfortunate consequence of their revelation) never will. We're not allowed to see, to experience, to understand. In fact, it's even put forth that we CAN'T. We must simply believe. Imagine if anything else in life were that way.
If that is the case, don't get an education, it's not worthwhile. Why learn? Why question? Have faith in God, live a simple life, die, and get off this forsaken rock. Be a monk. Live in the mountains and worship God. We are not meant to understand him, or his ways. Science is a worthless field, for it attempts to answer questions to which we already have the answers: God is miraculous.

People often ask me that without faith in God, without faith in the afterlife, doesn't my life feel worthless? Like there is no point, no meaning. I feel it is quite the contrary.

Doesn't the thought of: Live a pious life, die, go to heaven make this life seem a wee bit worthless? Critical, but so infinitely fleeting that in comparison to the afterlife it's inconsequential? Other than proving yourself to God? This is just a temporary proving grounds. A test.

To me, life is all I have, so I make the most of it. It is infinitely important. I have no afterlife. I have no eternity to fall back on. I am only myself, here, now. What could make me value life any more?

Amon-Ra

Shralp:

I'll tell you this much: An impartial reader coming to this discussion would quickly conclude that Big B and the Christians treat their fellow human beings much better. That in itself is a pretty strong argument for Christianity.I assumed you meant "the correctness of Christianity". Since Christianity involves the belief in a god, what you've said implies that it argues well for his existence. If you simply meant that it argues well for the positive influence it has on the world, then I agree... you didn't say it was any proof. Sorry about that.

Everyone:

I'm actually NOT after proof anymore. You can't actually have it. Well, you can't have it and actual FAITH at the same time. I said it in at least one of my previous posts, but I didn't say it as well as Laches did.

As for "why atheists run around and preach"... you're right... some do. Some are out to do nothing more than shatter your faith so they can wear a smug grin. But it's not all like that. I participate in these arguments as much for myself as anything else. They are entertaining and stimulating. Without them, I might continue with an error in logic sitting in the middle of what I thought I knew or believed.

Now to return to a point from my previous post, which I think I need to expand on (as, re-reading it, I don't think I made myself clear enough). Please, if I've made a mistake in definition or logic, point it out to me. I'm using the definition of faith as put forward by Mother T earlier in this thread.

The bible tells of the existence of god. It doesn't hint, it flat out tells you he's around. So, if I have faith in the bible, that is, if I acknowledge what's in the bible as true, without any proof, I can't actually have faith in god. Having faith in the bible would provide evidence that god exists, and as such, would make faith in god an impossibility.

On the other hand, if you have faith in god, you can't have any proof. As such, someone who has faith in god must not have faith in what's in the bible, as it provides evidence, the shatterer of faith. Would this mean that only those who have not read the bible, or do not believe it, can truly have faith in god?

[ September 25, 2002, 22:09: Message edited by: Judas ]

Amon-Ra, I believe you may have misinterpreted my post. I tried to purposely go out of my way to not be accusatory of anyone in particular, only noting that some of the previous posts had become a tad bit antagonistic. It is that antagonism that I don't understand. Nowhere did I say that you shouldn't question or wonder. Nowhere did I say that you shouldn't care. Nowhere did I say that you shouldn't debate. If you reread my post I simply said that I don't understand the motive of some to destroy the faith of others; that is different than those who engage in these type of debates out of a joy of understanding, wondering, and a desire to learn and appreciate. As Judas said, there are a fair number of atheists and agnostics who wish to destroy the faith of others simply so they may smirk, that is what I was referencing. Nothing was directed at you.

Also, there was a broad overgeneralization above. The Christians who would maintain that dinosaure bones were planted by Satan (or more peculiarly by God as a test), or that evolution is a hoax, etc. are a minority. Evolution and Christianity are not inherently incompatable -- the Pope acknowledges evolution for goodness sake. Most Christians do not interpret the Bible literally.

Judas, this agnostic is reaching back to his days in Catholic school (where I gave a few religion teachers heartburn I'm sure) and would say that one answer to your question is that the Bible isn't something seperable from God that you have faith in. The Bible is supposed to be the word of God. It is merely a vehicle for God to convey his wants and desires to man. It isn't something that you have independent faith in. You have faith that what is said by the Bible is actually the word of God, but this is wrapped up in your belief that there is a Judeo-Christian God. They are in essence, inseperable. Faith in one is faith in the other.

Also, even if a Christian takes the Bible to be actual proof of the existence of God it strikes me that there is still a qualitative difference between the type of proof it would be and the type of proof one does for her symbolic logic class. It is the latter sort of proof which in my opinion would destroy faith, not the former.

As an aside, I believe that there are at least some sect of the Jewish faith that do not believe in hell (I probably got this from reading about Spinoza somewhere.) Also, the Roman Catholic Church maintains the position that hell is not fire and brimstone but the absence of God. The Roman Catholic belief is that you live your life and by sinning and refusing to seek forgiveness you are essentially saying to God that you do not wish to spend the rest of eternity with him/her/it so that when you die you simply go somewhere where God has withdrawn its presence. This idea of hell that is held by Roman Catholicism and the idea that there is no hell that at least some Jews believe alters the argument that God is unjust to condemn someone to infinite suffering for finite sins.

Here is something too for the atheists. Some agnostics (not myself) hold that we have an epistemic responsibility to not believe in something unless you are justified in doing so. Since there is not proof of the existence of a god, they do not feel that one can responsibly believe in a god. Likewise, since there is no proof that a god does not exist, they hold you can not responsibly believe that a god does not exist, ie. you can't responsibly be an atheist. So, if you are an atheist and acknowledge there is no proof that there is no god (and I haven't seen anyone claim such a proof exists) then how do you justify being an atheist? Shouldn't you acknowledge that you don't know either? Where do you obtain the certainty that there is no god if there is no proof that one doesn't exist? Isn't that abandoning logic in the same way that some atheists accuse those who believe in a god of doing? I'll hold my thoughts for later I think since I've rambled on long enough. peace -- laches

On the other hand, if you have faith in god, you can't have any proof. As such, someone who has faith in god must not have faith in what's in the bible, as it provides evidence, the shatterer of faith. Would this mean that only those who have not read the bible, or do not believe it, can truly have faith in god? Judas, having faith in God himself is the same as having faith in the validity of the bible itself. There is also no proof that everyone in the bible existed, or that the events happened. There may be confirmations of certain events and places, but not everything can be proved. The bible is a guideline. If you have faith in it's writings, you can have faith in God. Some people choose to take it word for word. Others know that that's impossible unless you understand the original languages that it is written in.

With the understanding that those who wrote the bible are not perfect, having faith in it is what gives you the ability to decipher true meanings from it.

[ September 26, 2002, 00:33: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

Having faith in the bible requires the assumption that changes that have been made to it by the church throughout the years have been inline with what God wanted.

One could argue that the church is guided by God and as such the changes it makes / has made are in line with God’s will. With that line of thinking however, everything should be in line with God’s will and there is no free will.

I do not have the evidence at hand right now but I was reading somewhere that it has been shown that forms of government have used the church to control people. If that is the case, could they have not also used the bible?

An interesting question is: “Should someone who is suitably inspired by God be able to change the bible nowadays OR is the current form of the bible final?”

http://www.nccg.org/FAQ036-Hell.html
The first sentence of the answer makes a good argument by itself against Big B's reasoning of us going to hell hif we regect god. Though I don't believe in even half of the things this guy says it makes a good rebbutal against the 'You will go to hell if you don't believe' theme thats coming up.

Laches: Following is an answer to the question you directed at atheists.

First, let’s get some definitions straight.

Theism: The belief that there is a god.
Atheism: The absence of the belief that there is a god. Atheism is often divided into two subcategories: strong and weak. Strong Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Weak atheism is the absence of the belief of a god. There is a subtle but important difference.

I’ll butt in briefly to say that I agree with the stance that strong atheism is as equally “irresponsible” as theism. The descriptions of god put forward by some are crafty, and impossible to disprove. You can see my earlier posts regarding proving Yahweh doesn’t exist (at least with the attributes he’s said to have) – that is a relatively easy one. But it’s easy enough to add an excuse here and a change there, and make it impossible to disprove his existence. This leaves strong atheists with as much ammunition as theists have - that is to say none.

Now, back to definitions:

Agnosticism: This is a slippery one. I’ll start out by saying that agnosticism does NOT lie somewhere between theism and atheism. Theism and atheism are based upon belief. Agnosticism is based on knowledge. It can be argued that many (some may say most, if not all) theists (and atheists, for that matter) are also agnostic. Determining whether one is agnostic or not is based upon knowledge, not belief.

For further information on agnosticism, I suggest looking up Atheism vs Agnosticism using Google. Following is a link to a site that explains what agnosticism is.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_agnosticism.htm

It can be seen from the previous definitions that being an atheist does not [necessarily] involve irresponsible beliefs. However, I must agree that strong atheism has a similar footing to theism, and as such, displays a funny form of hypocrisy.

[ September 26, 2002, 08:28: Message edited by: Judas ]

To Mother T,

Your explanation about “Faith” is really an eye opener. It made me realize that I’m fighting with a wrong strategy. And I am glad that Judas (our Judas) had also accepted that reasoning.

To Big B,

You are doing the right thing, keep on sowing the seeds. In His time, the seeds will grow.

To Judas,

Man, I really have so much to say to you. But for some reasons I would have to hold back some of them. I will, however, let you know some of the reasons. You have quite a number of queries regarding my earlier post that I have yet to reply. I was actually trying to collect info for my claims, but Mother T’s “Faith” and your acceptance of that reason have made stop. So this is some clarifications/or explanation not necessarily to prove my points or disprove your arguments.

Regarding my estimated time, you are correct, I made a very bad mistake. What I wanted to present was the time between Moses and Paul.

With regards to the authors not being able to read their predecessors’ works, I will not continue this, as I can prove this as much as anyone can disprove it. Let’s leave this behind.

Single thought and one author. The Bible, to me holds only one message, and that is the Love of God for human kind. For me to explain this might cause more debates. Should anyone wants to talk about it, that up to them.

My referencing of scientific topics where not totally intended for you, as I have stated, it was “Judas and those who believed that the Bible is not a valid source…”. What I have posted seemed to be centered on you that is probably because you were the most active opposition at that point in time.

Heart and mind, your jest regarding that is well taken. Your suggestion of conscience and emotion is close, but I was thinking more specifically about “faith” and “love”. I will not continue to explain this, for the reasons that I find it difficult to explain. It involves to many aspects of believing without material proof. Probably someone would try to attempt. And besides, I believe that Mother T’s “Faith” had also touch about logic and the absence of material proof can not provide a good battle ground for such debate. Also, you have to be aware that Christians have the term “being touched by the Holy Spirit” or “filled by the Holy Spirit”, many have the misconception that this is conscience. Don’t get me wrong with this one Judas, I’m not referring to you (I don’t know your stand with this one.) Not everything that the conscience make you feel is the way of the Lord. So I leave this topic be.

Experiencing the Bible, this I love to share. Unlike science, where we experience it mostly by our five senses, namely: touch, smell, sight, hearing and taste. Experiencing the Bible, on the other hand, is felt emotionally (I’m not comfortable using this term, but I can’t think of a better one, so bear with me) or involves manifestation of changes in our attitudes, character, lifestyles, way of thinking, how we treat others, and etc. Some examples:

Let’s say our drinking buddy, John, he suddenly stops coming to our favorite bar. After a few weeks, we knock on his door, he opens it, and we say “John, let’s grab some beer and boogie the night away.” And he said, “John is dead, this is a new creation of God. I’m going to a Bible study tonight, would you guys want to come with me?”

Or maybe this old lady who had lost everything she owns, seen her husband and children died. And yet she inspires everyone around her. When asked why she does that, she only answers, “Because the Bible told me that God loves me and I can see that love all around me.”

Or maybe a couple who witnessed their son being senselessly murdered right in front of them during the war time. Ten years later, they adopted the very person who killed their son. The military officer (the newly adopted son), asked why he was forgiven and loved. The couple can only say because the love of God compels them to.

Or maybe this Chinese minister who was imprisoned simply because he was preaching about Jesus Christ in China. He was tasked to clean a pool of manure that is waist-deep, and he is singing “Amazing Grace” and “How Faithful Thou Art” while performing his task.

Or maybe this grumpy and stingy boss of yours suddenly approved the deserved salary raise and became a good friend to everyone in the office. A total turn about of what he used to be. Because he had accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Those are some of examples of experiencing the Bible, not the Bible literally but the Word of God. They are true, and I’m sure you have in several occasions read or witnessed something like those. These experiences are too many to ignore. In fact, these are actually why some unbelievers call us “stupid”, “morons”, "boring", “fanatics”, and as one SP poster termed us, “brainwashed”. There’s nothing I can do about those labels. For all I know, some of us do deserved to be branded as such, but that’s for you to decide. Those changes were for the better. As for me, I know what I have experienced, it is the word of God working in us.

To Amon-Ra,

I am a Protestant. And I agree with what you have said about dinosaurs and hasty conclusions based simply on the “have faith in God” reason. I used to be that kind of a person. And I still have several Christian friends, some of them more mature than me (age-wise or knowledge-wise or even both) that looks at things with that kind of attitude. It is a shame that Christians have these kind of thinking but then again not all, and hopefully not the majority, but unfortunately it seems like the more vocal ones. I’ll be using “dinosaur” to mean any scientific discoveries that have conflicting evidences against the Christian teachings. However, this does not mean all them, there might be exceptions.

Living in the Philippines have given me several experiences, being a Christian nation, predominantly Roman Catholic. I have witnessed (not exactly seen but rather exposed to because of what’s going on around) several “supernatural” events, such as images of the Virgin Mary crying tears of blood, a dancing sun with the image of Jesus Christ, touching the robes of certain saint's image have healed them and so fort. I’m not saying that it only happens here, I’m sure most of you have heard of such events elsewhere. Although most Christians concluded these as miracles from God (let’s use “miracles” for this kind of events). These “miracles” have infused a sudden flow of zealousness or fanaticism, should you prefer. Should I say they are not real or should I go along the flow?

Things like these “miracles” and “dinosaur” have made me wonder. They are both beyond the normal circumstances, they are what I would like to call “faith shakers” or “science disrupters” (there may also be others, such as for logic, philosophies or whatever, but let’s keep it simple). Science could not convince me that most “dinosaurs” are real, and religion could not make me accept most of these “miracles” are from God. Caught in between, to some it is the best thing, to me it is a troubling state to be in. This is then that I realized that all those things have nothing important to do with what I truly believe in, and that is simply that God loves me, and that I have chosen to walk His path. Why should I let these “dinosaurs and miracles” cause me to fall from His grace. What is important to me is my relationship with my creator (I’m not forgetting that I should be evangelizing and living a life acceptable to God, but then again for simplicity sake let’s keep it this way). Some Christians call what I did as part of the process of discerning. And discerning requires divine intervention in order to pinpoint what I should believe in or not. What divine intervention am I talking about, to me, it is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (the Holy Trinity) guiding me. And this is something very personal and may work differently in each Christian or person. Yes, person, not only Christians can be “touched by the Holy Spirit. That is why I never believe that a religion can save you (it can help you but it is not the solution), Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. In short a Christian’s relationship with God has many levels, we often call this “maturity in Christ”. Should you meet Christians with an extreme “have faith in God” attitude, try to know his “maturity in Christ”. A true Christian does not believe blindly, they don’t simply dismiss logic, however, if logic seems to be getting in the way of their faith, they know which to choose. They are not easily shaken, they know that nothing can take them away from the love of God (Big B can probably give you the Bible verse for this promise).

As I said, I might not have all the answers, but at least I'm not so readily willing to stop looking. I have drawn no conclusions, because there is nothing to draw them upon. I'm not afraid of what I don't know. It is my driving force, my courage. - Amon-RaThat is not completely true. Just because we have submitted ourselves to God does not mean that we have stop searching for answers. We still do, and like Job, we still question God. We still want to know if those “dinosaurs” are real or those “miracles” are from Him. Why do you think there are Christians who suddenly stop believing? We still strive to know things, things like why are there sufferings, why did God allowed evil on earth, and why won’t God just come down from heaven and reveal Himself once and for all, and all sorts of questions. To have a much deeper understanding of God is a very difficult task, that is why the Bible is so important to us. It is one of our greatest link to Him. And like most of you, many of us do not receive the answers right away, some never got the answers in their lifetime. And the absence or delays of those answers have caused some of us to walk away from Him just as others would remain hoping that IN HIS TIME, those answers will be made known. The difference between a believer and a non-believer is that we have the assurance that those answers will be revealed.

To someone,

One of you have asked something about God being a jealous God but I could not find that post, sorry. But here is an answer, this can also answer some of the questions regarding why God is punishing people.

Exodus 20:1-6
1. And God spoke all these words:
2. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”
3. “You shall have no other gods before me.”
4. “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”
5. “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for, I, the Lord you God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
6. but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

That is the first of the Ten Commandments that God gave Moses in Mount Sinai. Yes, God is indeed a jealous God.

[ September 26, 2002, 10:24: Message edited by: nior ]

Thank you for clearing that up, Judas. Saved me a little time.

Laches: I wasn't entirely responding to you, simply clarifying that I wasn't trying to be antagonistic, and if I was, it was merely in the form of a devil's advocate(pardon the phrase).

I am an atheist in the sense that I lack distinguishable beliefs. That is not to say that I am unable to hold steady a belief, simply that I am unwilling. I'm not ready to stand and say I have the answers, and anyone who might has a lot of justification to do before they are lent credibility- at least by way of me. I approach all contentions with equal scrutiny, and as of yet, none has been able to make it to the final round. None has survived that devastating kick to the balls when, if you're still standing, you've won.

Religion, however, I see as having done the most damage of any other aspect of culture in history. Beliefs form schisms that, to this day, are the subject of wars and bombings. It leads to constraints on beneficial technology. It becomes a powerful weapon of justification in the hands of the ignorant: i.e. Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, Inquisition. Hold- I've noticed something. It is not religion that I have qualms with, its any form of a church body. They wield their followers like soldiers of fortune that are paid in sanctity and cleansing. If one is to believe in God, why must he channel that belief through an old man in a hat? Can one not believe in God without going to church? Can one not be one's own church/congregation?

I do not believe there is a God, or any other fundamentally held objects of religions. At the same point I acknowledge that this standpoint is unprovable, as of yet. If there sounds to be any resentment, or any seemingly irrational distaste for religion on my part, it is probably meant to be geared toward organized religion instead of simple spiritual beliefs. Organized religion, in my perception, works against progress in many instances, acting as an extremely conservative body. As a species, we often need- or are subject to- radical change. Any group that would hinder the perpetuation of our species in order to maintain moral/societal norms I see to be irrational and intolerable.

Believe what you may,
But get out of my way,
If I do not agree.

Amon-Ra

Finally, just the reply I was hoping for. The old charge that it is organized religion which is to blame for many of the sorrows in the world. I was hoping for this reply because I hear it quite often and I think it is disingenuous.

Now, never in my life have I been a participating member in any organized religion. Born into a family with a Methodist mother and a non-denominational father, I did attend Catholic school for 4 years. I tell you this simply to point out that I don't have an agenda, I'm not trying to defend my own. Indeed, I used to use the same line about what misery the world has suffered at the hand of religion. I now believe that to be absurd.

Were the massacres committed at the behest and by the hand of Genghis Khan were the result of religion? Was the St. Valentine's Day massacre in Chicago due to religion? Was the Opium War where Britain stole Hong Kong due to religion? Did the Inquisition occur because of religion?

I say no. What, how can I say the Inquisition didn't occur because of religion? I say that all of the above examples occurred not because of religion but because man by nature craves power. To blame Christianity for the Inquisition rather than the cold calculating men who were using it as a means to solidify and extend their power base in tremendously unfair in my opinion. I of course am not denying that powerful leaders have used religion as a tool, a vehicle of maintaining and justifying the attempt to expand their power. However, imagine for a moment a world without any organized religion. I submit to you that precisely the same type of attrocities that have taken place in this world would take place in that world, because mans' thirst for power is not tied to organized religion. The fact that man is capable of assuming control of religious institutions and using them to further his own ambitions no more makes religion inherently evil or dangerous than the ability of man to seize an airliner and use it as a bomb makes an airliner inherently evil.

In short, don't blame organized religion for the world's problems. The real culprit is man, and the same problems will exist with or without organized religion.

One thing, ealier in the post I wrote that when some lay the world's woes at the feet or religion they are being disingenuous. That's an overgeneralization and I thought about changing it. I decided not to because I know that there are some I'm sure who sincerely believe that religion is a cause of problems rather than an excuse or a stolen vehicle of those with independent desires for power. I suspect Amon-Ra is sincere. However, just as many try to destroy the faith of others just to smirk, I know from experience many trot out this line just to smirk as well, they don't really believe it, they're just being disingenuous.

Judas, you're right and I was sloppy in how I was using my terms. Huxley came up with agnosticism to mean those who believe the existence of a god is unknowable where atheism can be either strong or weak. It was good that was pointed out because I was using the terms as they are normally used assuming the normal usage was what everyone was referring to here. Look atheism up in Webster's and the second definition is "doctrine that there is neither a god nor any other deity." Now this of course isn't true to the original meaning, but it is how it has come to be understood to most today. You're right though that we should be more precise and I'll strive to be so : )

[ September 26, 2002, 18:28: Message edited by: Laches ]

"Yeah God did create a perfect world but we messed things up by choosing for the devil."

in a perfect world would there even be a devil?

If the devil doesnt exist in a perfect world the neither does God since
"evil" doesnt exist without "good" and "good" cant exist without "evil"

[ September 26, 2002, 19:42: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Wrongo.

Evil is the absence of God (caused by those who reject him, not because he can't be everywhere). Therefore, a lack of evil just means that God is everywhere, which is altogether logically consistent.

Boy, you people are hard to keep up with. I turn around for a few hours and the discussion has progressed leaps and bounds in my absence.

Ok, just a couple things:

MotherT: thanks, though I never actually intended to define free will as such. It´s more of an "if " thing: I think that if God does in fact exist, and he is, in fact, omniscient, and therefore all things to come have already been predetermined, then free will cannot exist, even if nobody is forcing you to do or choose anything, because your own choices in life have already been preestablished and therefore are meaningless (your whole existence is, actually, if we continue to follow this line of reasoning). I try not to make cathegorical statements regarding these sort of things.

Amon-Ra: Yes, sadly, organized religion is too easily abused (more so than most institutions), and there are far too many historical examples of this. I am, too, an atheist, and a skeptic, in the sense that I remain unconvinced as to the existence of supernatural phenomena (gods and devils included), I also believe that membership any given religion is unnecessary to live a good and moral life, and I believe being a good person here and now is more important than worrying about any hypothetical afterlife.

Finally: Shralp, you say that Evil is the absence of God, caused by those who reject him, then please explain the following statement:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. " (Isaiah 45.7).

[ September 26, 2002, 23:09: Message edited by: hermit09 ]

My Bible's translation of Isaiah 45:7 ->

The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well being, and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

If you take in the context of the whole chapter and not just a single word in a single verse (a common mistake) - you see that God does not throw "evil" around for fun. The chapter is about the power and authority of God. And that verse and some others are about bringing forth calamity on His enemies, those who worship false gods and idols and who shun Him.

But interesting that you should qoute from that very chapter as we also have this famous passage which has a lot to do with this thread in general:

"Woe to the one who quarrels with the Maker - an earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say 'He has no hands'? Woe to him who says to a father, 'What are you begetting?' Or to a woman, 'To what are you giving birth?'"

And here you are nior, a great passage concerning that nothing can seperate those who believe in God and His love:

Romans 8:38-39 ->

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to seperate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Oh, and Shralp, I was trying not to let this bother me but in the end it was stronger than me. Sorry.

Your argument that evil is the absence of God, created by rejecting him, also seems to imply that the existence of good is only possible by accepting God (not any God, either, just the christian God), wich makes everyone in the world who is not a christian inherently evil. Please tell me that´s not what you were trying to say.

Truth be told, I wasnt paying attention to Whatnots, and so did not have the ... we could say Pleasure of reading this from the begining.

A bit about me:
I am Atheist, by definition, I do not believe in a God, I do not believe in a Devil, nor do I blieve in the places said people inhabit, aka, Heaven and Hell. I dont believe in Purgatory, and I dont believe in organized religion.
That said, I do not like to refer to myself as an atheist. Why? Why would you not embrace the word that most describes what you believe. I dont agree with what people think of Atheists, how so many people think they are Anti-God, and everything, and I hate even more those that actually call themselves atheist, for the simple reason its different from christianity.
I did not choose to be Atheist. I was born and baptized into Christianity, attended church since when my mother went. But Christianity never satisfied me, I never liked the answers that never actually answered the question posed, and and the Rules that said you should question everything, except God.
I have never enjoyied someone telling me what to do, be the person a parent an official of law, or an ordained minister. It never appealed too me, I know someone will say its not my place to agree with it ... But I say it is, it affects me, and the choices I will make in my life, so why should it jsut be their opinion that is good for me? Why do they, and not I know what is the best thing for me too do? Have they spent their entire life living mine? Or are they basing what is best for an individual on what is best for them?

I dont pretend to have answers for anyone, I dont have them, its simple as that.
I will never tell someone what to believe, I have had people ask me what they should believe in, and the only thing I told them was to look into what ever interests them, if it continues too, keep looking into it, till it no longer interests you, you will find what to believe sooner or later.

Shralp, your the only one Im going to comment on ... and my thoughts follow similar to hermit09's.
Evil is not the absense of God, because that makes everything without god evil. And that is much more generalization than saying all Christians are fanatics.
Evil is the absense of Good. That is why Evil and Good are objective, and speculative.

Say, Big B:

"The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well being, and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these."

Translations will vary, yes.

"If you take in the context of the whole chapter and not just a single word in a single verse (a common mistake) - you see that God does not throw "evil" around for fun. The chapter is about the power and authority of God. And that verse and some others are about bringing forth calamity on His enemies, those who worship false gods and idols and who shun Him."

Excuse me, I do not recall ever having said, or implied, that God threw "evil" around "for fun", as you put it. Shralp had equated evil to the absence of God. This passage seemed to contradict his argument. Perhaps there is some sort of failure to communicate here. In any case, the passage you have quoted seems to indicate that God does, indeed, create "evil", in the sense of misfortune or calamity (evil happenings, as it were), as a form of divine punishment, wich is then directed at unbelievers. It could be argued that God himself does not create evil in a moral sense, but rather his absence does, wich would put us in a very uncomfortable position, as the logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that only people who have accepted God (i.e., christians) can be good, but those of us who are not christians can only be evil (as we have "rejected God"). I´d like to think that this is not the case, and that one can be a good person without being a christian.

Your next quote, the one that says "Woe to the one who quarrels with the maker", does have me at a bit of a loss, but I seem to get the general feeling that you´re trying to tell me to just stop arguing about God, as He, being the Creator, obviously knows better than me about all these things, and I should just accept Him and what His ministers and his Book tell me, and quit questioning Them.

Lest some evil might befall me, unbeliever that I am.

But of course, I could be wrong.

[ September 27, 2002, 00:52: Message edited by: hermit09 ]

Big B, Yes, if I am the clay, I would say to the potter, "What are you doing?"

All of this under the supposition that God exists:

From where does it come, this notion that we are not to question of the meaning of our existence? Where is it said that we must live hollow and meaningless lives spurned on by the creation of some bored creator? Where is it proven that we CAN'T understand? If he is to spin the wheel, and I am to be born of its mechanations, then I am going to ask him why this is so. And what reason would he have then to smite me? Or to feel that I am "turning my back on him"? Why should he feel that I have to serve unquestioningly? I would not be intending disrespect, only exemplifying the capacities he granted me. If he is responsible for my creation, am I not entitled to a little respect in the form of an explanation? Is he not reasonable enough to grant an answer to my curiousity? Or does he regard me as so infinitely inferior as not to be worth his attempts at justifying my creation? I did not wish for this life. I did not request to be tested so. Yet if he exists he forces me to be present and abide by the natural laws he put in place. I am willing, being a good sport and all, (that's a twinge of sarcasm/jokingness, i do that) if out of sheer curiosity, to try it out- but why should I deny the capabilities I am granted? Why should I play soccer without my feet and have "faith" that the ball will go in the net? I'm not about to have "faith" and that be the end of the line when I have capacity to reason.

Tell me, do you have ample justification for denying your capacities to question God? And following, have you enough to deny questioning even the presence of God- the basis of your beliefs in existence?

Amon-Ra

My ex science teacher once said, 'If you think that Adam and Eve were two people who lived in a garden then you have an immature view of your faith.' he then proceded to explain how Adam in some language means 'mankind' and Eve means something else.
In other words, the bible cannot be taken literaly.

Thank you Big B!

If God says something's gonna happen then by Jove it's gonna happen - My old Corps Officer said that.

You made my day! :D

Hermit, you're correct that that is not what I was saying.

The person who is rejecting God is doing evil, but that does not make them evil themselves. Note also that there are many non-Christians who have never rejected God or Christianity. They may never have even heard of the latter.

[Edit] Missed your verse request.

Revised Standard Version:
"I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things."

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I really can't get into the intricacies of translation. If you're truly interested (as opposed to just throwing stones in an attempt to shoot people down), I suggest consulting an authority on Church translation.

[ October 01, 2002, 22:50: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Why should I play soccer without my feet and have "faith" that the ball will go in the net? I'm not about to have "faith" and that be the end of the line when I have capacity to reason. - Amon RaOk, you got feet so you can do something without, however we all don't have the technique to score. Why should you play soccer when you are unable to get the ball in the goal? Many have tried and they all died, couldn't save themselves. We cannot save ourselves, so what is your tactic in the game? Still wanna do it by yourself? There's only one who can score that goal, so go for that substitution.

Aikanaro -
My ex science teacher once said, 'If you think that Adam and Eve were two people who lived in a garden then you have an immature view of your faith.' he then proceded to explain how Adam in some language means 'mankind' and Eve means something else.
In other words, the bible cannot be taken literaly. Most names have some extended meaning. They were given (or earned) up until quite recently because of a characteristic or feature of a person. Adam may have been called Adam because, at the time, he was all of mankind.

Boy, I got really absorbed reading all this. I have lots of opinions as well but they seem pretty well covered - so I'll leave you to it. ;)

Eve means: Mother of All Living People, and Adam means Mankind indeed, but I think he got that name because all living people descend from him. However the dicussion of how the world started, when there were only Adam and Eve, then how could Kain after he fled, meet other people?

I don't think it is the most important thing to think about. I don't need to know all details exactly to believe in God, for there is so much we cannot understand. That is not to make it all more easy, and to have an answer on all questions I on wich I don't know the answer though.

There would be no one around to document those times anyway, they would not have had any developed ways of writing then and we wouldn't be able to translate it even if they did so whatever happened then cannot be proved and there are many more theories out there that make more sense than that one.

i've got one word for those who take genesis literally: incest.