I travelled into Gisborne on the East coast of New Zealand's North Island a few weeks past, and i found my self in conversation with a Protestant Christian preacher.
I listened to what he wanted to tell me, stories of his depravity followed by realisation of his sin and forgivness from the Lord. I had heard it before because i always make a point of listening to these people if i can. They have a hard job and a great deal of abuse to take.

So there were two things i would like any comments on from you guys.

1) I asked him a question:

I said 'If a child is born to a Muslim (or any other faith) mother and father, and he is brought up as such, and he lives a good honest life wherein he never harms or kills or acts in a 'bad' way, but he never hears the name of Jesus and is never even told of any such thing as Christianity and he dies in such lack of knowledge. Where does he go after death'
Of course the man attempted to stall but i eventually got the simple answer.

'Then he would send himself to hell' (mark the words, send HIMSELF')

It occurred to me that a deceased friend of mine, who was a much better person than I, in fact the best of people, is right now slowly turning on a spit in hell. All because he did not ask forgivness from this all loving God.. Comments?


2) I then described to the Preacher my position on free will and sin. I told him that God is by very defintion infinitely good and wise, if he is not then he is not God, an issue agreed by philosphers. As such, when he created Adam and Eve in 4004 BC he MUST have known every consequence and action that every human being would ever take. For he is all knowing. He gave us free will in the knowledge of what we would do with it, and if he did not know that eve would take the fruit then he is not all knowing and he is not God. Therefore, if God created us he created us in the knowledge that we would send ourselves to hell, yet he continued.

So is God good?

The preacher had no answer to this. He simply said, after thought. Yes. I asked why. He said, Because we send ourselves to hell.
...He hadn't really understood what i had said.


I would love to hear constructive comments and i welcome criticism so no unsightly anger please...

Muslims believe Jesus to be a prophet.

Anyway I don't believe that God would send anyone to hell because they do not believe Jesus to be the Son. The Bible has been changed so many times and there are many versions so which one is correct?

I don't believe that any Rabbi, Priest, Minister etc has any authority to give a definate answer to your questions.

You only go to hell of you believe it exists. That's why missionaries need to be shot on sight. ;)

Every religion has its mechanisms for punishment if you don't leed a life according to their moral code. But you cannot expect that priests of one religion agree to this.

Your questions and the answers you received are a large part of why I left Chrisitianity.

The bloody hell were you doing in Gisborne of all places? That bloody one horse town ;)

But your questions are obviously justified and yes, Christian holy men (priests, whatever) can never agree on the result. However, given that it's one of the ten commandments that one must worship God and no other god/idol (and idol could mean idology such as Bhuddasim - which in my opinion is possibly the most reasonable of all the faiths) and the ten commandments are basically the 'word of God'... set in stone no less (haw haw - the wit! :p ) one would imagine that to defy even ONE of those is pretty much a one-way ticket to hell, less they repent - and as you said before: they're not repenting. So according to Christians - if you take The Bible to be true - then yes, they would go to hell because they simply don't believe in God despite never even hearing of the notion.

I never knew that Gisborne was the ultimate destination for people on a pilgrimage to find the ultimate meaning of life. Maybe all the answers can be found in Gisborne. Maybe the second coming will take place at the Makoriri Point surf beach!

Now I know were I should go on my next vacation.
Everybody, hop up! We are all going to the land of the second coming… :banana:

Well, I take it this is an invitation to give alternative answers and, as a Protestant Christian myself, I must say this preacher didn't really know his stuff. His answer to the first question absolutely shocked me. God makes it pretty clear (considering it's in the Old Testament of the Bible ;) ) that those who never hear the word of God are judged by what they DID know. It also says that the evidence of God's glory and power are written throughout nature, and this is backed up by a number of smaller religions that popped up the Americas, India, southern Africa, and other parts of the world. These religions were all basically the same, they believed there was one God who made all things and controlled all things and that He was a just and loving God, and that all of them had sinned and had to make it up to God somehow. They never knew the 10 commandments, never knew the name of Jesus, or anything in the Bible, but they knew the character of God and their own sinful nature. Lets just say the missionaries had a really easy time with them.

Anyway, my point is, if someone never knows the word of God, yet acts according to his/her conscience and admits that they have sinned SOMEHOW at SOME POINT, God will reward them and forgive them. So you're hypothetical child is going to heaven.

You're second point is one that has raised a lot of debate, and I have yet to settle on an answer myself, but I'd say it has to do with the nature of free will. You see, in order to have free will, there must be a choice. This means a choice between obeying God and doing something else. Since everything else is sin, that means that there must be sin. God is not only wise and good, He is also just, which means sin must be punished. When you get right down to it, all sin is placing yourself in place of God, so all sin is equal, so all punishment must be equal. It is also all REALLY bad, as claiming (explicitly or implicitly) to be God is REALLY bad, so eternal death (Hell) for all who sin is just. God is also merciful, so He came up with a way to forgive us, but someone had to take the punishment, as God can't just forget about it, that wouldn't be jsutice. That's where we get Jesus.

Again, anyway, yes God made humans knowing that they would sin, and even knowing that some would not recieve forgiveness and go to Hell, but He did give us all a way out, and knowing that something will happen and causing it to happen are two different things, so yes, God is good.

1) I think this guy is not a reasonable person. In Islam ( and in most of the other religions), and as NOG said, in christianity; the answer is "to heaven"

if someone never knows the word of God, yet acts according to his/her conscience and admits that they have sinned SOMEHOW at SOME POINT, God will reward them and forgive them.I have sinned. Does that mean I get to go to heaven now? That was easy. Why hasn't anybody put it so simply to me before?

Lets just say the missionaries had a really easy time with them.Of course, the guns and small pox also helped. :hahaerr:

OK, that was facetious, but you can find echoes of Judeo-Christian-Islamic stories in a number of religions preceeding them, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, etc. Perhaps there were certain basic religious ideas that travelled with the first humans as they migrated out of Africa. But that doesn't explain why major wars have been blamed on, say, different interpretations of the Apostle's Creed...

Faith always seemed a slippery notion to me. For example, why should an all-powerful God care what it is you say you believe? It's very easy to say "I believe," especially if everyone around you says the same thing. It's also not so difficult to convince yourself that you believe in something; when I was a little kid, playmates of mine had an unshakable faith in Santa Claus...

Or think of it this way: human thought is incredibly complex, and the bits that can be articulated as conscious thought are only the very tip of the iceburg. Shouldn't faith be more than a yes or no answer to a loyalty test? If you say you believe in a God that has some kind of relationship with you, wouldn't that relationship encompass all of you, and not just the parts you can articulate publically? And if God is in relation to parts of you that you can't articulate, shouldn't that make one just a little cautious about rendering judgments about what God does or does not approve of?

It also says that the evidence of God's glory and power are written throughout nature, and this is backed up by a number of smaller religions that popped up the Americas, India, southern Africa, and other parts of the world. These religions were all basically the same, they believed there was one God who made all things and controlled all things and that He was a just and loving God, and that all of them had sinned and had to make it up to God somehow. They never knew the 10 commandments, never knew the name of Jesus, or anything in the Bible, but they knew the character of God and their own sinful nature. Lets just say the missionaries had a really easy time with them.Never heard of these religions before. I'm curious. Do you have any links to any sources?

The old testament God is not loving, benevolent, or good. After decades of hearing such, it was quite shocking to actually read through the Bible.

As for your first question: I doubt there is a heaven or hell or a God as portrayed by christian teachings. If there is an eternal punishment for evil acts commited while on this earth, it seems that you would have to do something far more dire than to be ignorant of the christian faith...or commit adultery, bear false witness, indulge in 'deadly sins' etc. In short, it's unimaginable that the creator of the universe, *an infinite being* could possibly be so petty.

As for your second point: Your position on free will and sin closely reflect my own. I would add that it seems very unlikely that an omnipotent being would have failed ventures such as the ones God suffered. He created the earth and people and then realized at the time of Noah that it just wasn't working out, so he just erases everything and tries again? God, as described in the Bible, would just do it right the first time...wouldn't He?

If I were to create something exquisitely simple, as simple as I am to God, would flaws in my creation be it's fault or mine?

False witness, adultery or freely indulging in the deadly sins? Something far more dire? And not repenting?

For most of those one should be eternally punished.

And the just punishment? Far worse than fire and brimstone.

@Bion:
It's very easy to say "I believe," especially if everyone around you says the same thing. Ah, but an all-powerful God would know what you really believed, wouldn't He? If you're just saying it because it seems like fire-insurance, He'll know.

Or think of it this way: human thought is incredibly complex, and the bits that can be articulated as conscious thought are only the very tip of the iceburg. Shouldn't faith be more than a yes or no answer to a loyalty test? You have stummbled (or walked very carefully) into something I have been trying to explain to many people for years. My relationship with God is so much more than just me praying and going to church. It's more than I can put into words, and it does stretch into every portion of my life and mind. But at the same time, so does my girlfriend, and I can tell you flat out what she approves of. It becomes especially easy when He or she tells me. Whether its in His Bible, or her emails, I know that X will get a good reaction and Y will get a bad one because they said so. Like with everyone else, two-way communication is critical to a good relationship with God.

@Rotku:
Here's one: Mi'kmaq (http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore21.html) I'm actually descended from the Mi'kmaq, 1/64. If you read through the link, you find a complex religious belief system, but all linking back to one central creator and paying hommage to Him, not very common in early religions. It paints this creator as a loving, caring, good, and just creator, again, not very common in early religions. There's a lot more than this, and I don't know much of it, but this is only the creation story.

Nunsbane:
The old testament God is very loving to His chosen people. Look at Daniel, David, Abraham, Jonah (well, more the people He sent Jonah to, but...). The old testament focuses more on the just nature of God and His plans for Israel, but you can still see a loving God in there.

First point:So how bad is bad enough? And who makes you the person to decide? If you admit that God (if there is one), being the only perfecly just being is the only one to decide what merits what punishments, then you have to settle with what He gives.

Second point:Another issue of free will is that it isn't free if it's forced. If God made people behave right the first time, they wouldn't have done so out of free will, would they? God couldn't 'make it right the first time' because He can't 'make it right'. It isn't God's creation that makes people good or bad, it's human choice.

Rats have free will too. We just tested it today.

We are free to choose our actions, but not our consequences. Christianity has this thing called the atonement of Jesus Christ to enable the forgiveness of our sins.

Where I differ with this minister is that after death, there is a holding area for spirits. Those who lives righteously will know this and teach those that never received the truth (like the Muslim in your example). then there is the ressurection where all of us get ressurected bodies, and the Millenial reign of Christ, which will have unprecedented scientific learning. Then comes the final judgement. By this time, all will have had time to learn what will be taught, and only the most extreme of sinners (Shedding Innocent blood) and those that refuse to repent will be damned...

then there is the ressurection where all of us get ressurected bodies, and the Millenial reign of Christ, which will have unprecedented scientific learning.You mean that they'll finally admit that evolution is true, it's impossible to part oceans and that the world was created through physics rather than god? ;)

Isn't it interesting how the church has evolved. If you were to go back a thousand or so years ago, only a few minor off-shoots would ever think about suggesting that we have free will. Yet now it comes up commonly to defend religion. And the curious thing is that prehaps the earlier religions might have been closer to the truth - from my understanding, most lines of thinking now would point towards us not infact having free will.

I mean, if you look at free will - to have free will one must be able to make a decision or take an action that is not caused by something else. But how do we do these things? If I were to raise my right hand in the air, it's caused by muscles contracting/expanding, which in turn is caused by nerve impulses and so on. For it to be an action of freewill, there must have been a point somewhere where there is no causation. Yet even making the descision to raise my right hand has a cause; series chemical reactions in my brain caused me to take that action.

@Rotku:
Except that scientists have proven how you COULD part the Red Sea at a particular point if the winds were blowing strong enough. The aerodynamics are just right to split it down to the sea floor. Now that doesn't dry the land, or explain why it happened just when the Jews needed it and collapsed as the Egyptians tried it, but it is possible.

And what's this about only a few minor offshoots accepting free will? The New Testament is pretty heavy on free will, what with us choosing to serve God, to have faith, to be good, and all that. The Old Testament even goes as far as to almost flat out say it. It says that God 'hardened Pharoe's heart', which sounds like Him interfering with free will to me, which means that free will has to exist. Now I'm no expert on the state of the Church at 1000 AD, but it seems the basis of the Bible is on free will.

On top of that, you're confusing method of achieving a feat with the motive behind the feat. If I raise my hand, it is caused by muscles, yes, and those muscles act because of nerve impuses from the brain, yes, but what caused the brain to send them? My decision to raise my hand. Now whether it was raised because of instinct, or social programming, or free will is an issue of much debate.

By the way, a good definition of free will is not 'doing something without cause' but rather denying our instincts and social programming. If I eat when I'm hungry, I'm not really exerting free will, because my hunger said I should eat and I did it. If I refuse to eat because I need to study for a test, well, you could say free will did it or you could say social programming did it, but I refused my instinct. Now if I refuse to eat because the only food is something I don't want to eat, maybe I don't like the falvor and know I can get something better soon, that I can hold out that long, then what caused it? Certainly not instinct, because that says to eat food. Not social programming, because that never says eating what tastes better is right and just and you need to do it. Free will?

@Tass:
How exactly did you test a rat's ability to exert free will?

@Tass:
How exactly did you test a rat's ability to exert free will?
Well that was quite fun actually, we set up a closed area with a number of very different toys (shape, colour). Then we measured how long each rat spent with each toy (counting number of sniffs, single paw touches, two paw touches, aggressiveness to toy, etc). We had to wipe down the toys and area before each test to get rid of scent. Each rat very clearly prefers a different toy, they check them all out and return to their favourite.

NOG,
Yes, God gives lip service to being kind and loving but most of His actions in the old testament surely do not reflect this.

God is not just. Lot was good in Gods' eyes and worthy of mercy when He razed Sodom. This is the same Lot who had just offered his virgin daughters to be raped and probably killed by an angry mob outside.

God is not good. When God commisioned armies to be His sword in 'Isaiah' He points out that he will kill the men and women as they run and then dash their children to pieces before their eyes...how many children can a loving God dash to pieces before he loses his designation as a good and loving God?

God is not kind. He punished David and Bethsheeba for their sins by making their baby suffer an ultimately deadly illness. It took the baby a week to succumb...the act of a kind God?

God is mysogynistic. Turn to any page in the old testament and you will probably find an example of women being treated as chattle. Wasn't it king Solomon, who God thinks very well of, who had 600 concubines and 300 wives?

For every example of God acting in a loving manner throughout the old testament there are multiple examples of Him being flat evil.

My point concerning free will is that God knew in advance that He was making faulty beings and He knew who he would have to punish with hell before we existed and He created us anyway. In the old testament He seemed to enjoy exhibiting His power like when he hardened Pharoh's heart so He could display His power...maybe those of us who are doomed to damnation are His fodder, a means through which He can display His vengence.

I am not advocating such things as adultery or bearing false witness or any of the standard sins which are harmful to others. I avoid these things even without believing in God. I am saying that the punishment for these offenses is incongruous. How bad does a sin need to be in order to merit hell? What do you think, NOG? What offense merits an *eternity* of wailing, burning, and gnashing your teeth...most of the sins mentioned throughout the Bible don't fit the bill as far as I'm concerned. However, it would seem that the loving God, who sends His people to such an eternal fate, disagrees with my reasoning..I probably just don't understand His plan.

Both of the questions havesimple answers, Sleep.

1. One view, which the guy could have been espousing is that he would go to the 1st layer of hell, according to Dante , where righteous non-believeers go. He wouldn't be 'roasted on a spit', or any such nonsense.

2. God doesn;t create us in the knowledge that we'll go to hell, He gives us chances to earn heaven, and we fail. It's hardly His fault that we choose to turn from Him.

The Free Will thing prooves God's existance anyway, cos if we didn;t have free will, we'd be slaves, which God does not want. Therefore, he gives us the ability to choose for ourselves what we wish to do. If we choose to turn from Him, that's our decision, and we must accept the consequences, no?

I'm with Daie on those answers, and I'm not a religious guy.

Even if there is a God, as per the Christian definition, human beings still have a degree of freedom to choose their path in life. We make our choices and live with them; typically, the harder path to take is the right one, so why would a self-interested person do otherwise? Failing that, the threat of eternal torment/promise of eternal paradise seems like a pretty good motivator to me, especially in societies where most people weren't educated or literate.

There's a fundamental difference between being all-powerful and acting on that power. If there was no such thing as choice, there'd be no such thing as good or evil. Sure, God might know you're going to sin your selfish little heart out; it doesn't mean that God couldn't hope that you might stop yourself, find your own way, or turn your life around.

The sort of God who'd damn me to Hell simply because I never heard about it? Well, it can take its dogma and shove it, because it wouldn't be worth worshipping. Personally, I don't buy that line of argument, anyway: if there is a God, and God's the way he is described, then a human being doing the right things for the right reasons should have nothing to fear for any afterlife. If that's not the case, then that God can have the sandpit all to itself.

The concept of God and religion should be about making this world as good a place as it can be, and not the power grab that so many of its proponents seem to wield it as. Do what you know to be right, and know yourself - strengths, flaws and all - before trying to tell others who they might become.

You mean that they'll finally admit that evolution is true, it's impossible to part oceans and that the world was created through physics rather than god?They'll figure out what Darwin actually saw and will successfully reconcile scientific theory with religious truth (since at that time, Christ will be there to reign and will set things straight). How the seas were parted will be figured out, and all the mysteries of Creation finally figured out near the end of that millenium...

Isn't it interesting how the church has evolved. If you were to go back a thousand or so years ago, only a few minor off-shoots would ever think about suggesting that we have free will.Well, after the death of Paul and the other apostles, how many of the early religions actually took the bible seriously?

The New Testament is pretty heavy on free will, what with us choosing to serve God, to have faith, to be good, and all that.Not only that, but the Old Testament talks of people who have abused their free will, and committed sins. They knew the law, but still chose to transgress.

Wasn't it king Solomon, who God thinks very well of, who had 600 concubines and 300 wives?Solomon started well, but the power of being the king corrupted him. Having 700 wives and 300 Concubines is not reccommended. Besides, I'd have a hell of a time keeping their names straight, and I don't think my willie would hole up to my "husbandly duties"...

My point concerning free will is that God knew in advance that He was making faulty beings and He knew who he would have to punish with hell before we existed and He created us anyway.What you are neglecting in your attempt to make God look like an evil bastard is the fact that he sent his own Son, who would live a perfect life yet die in an incredibly painful manner so that our sins may be forgiven. This means that if we seek to do our best, we can be forgiven and ultimately return to God.

How bad does a sin need to be in order to merit hell? (snip) What offense merits an *eternity* of wailing, burning, and gnashing your teeth...most of the sins mentioned throughout the Bible don't fit the bill as far as I'm concerned.Only denial of God when you have a perfect witness of his existance and the Shedding of innocent blood are automatic. If there is no repentance, then you are not forgiven, and must pay in full the penalty of your sins.

The Free Will thing prooves God's existance anyway, cos if we didn;t have free will, we'd be slaves, which God does not want. Therefore, he gives us the ability to choose for ourselves what we wish to do. If we choose to turn from Him, that's our decision, and we must accept the consequences, no?That's exactly the point. Man is that they may have Joy, and the laws and ordinances of religion are the reccommended means of maximizing this joy.

There's a fundamental difference between being all-powerful and acting on that power. If there was no such thing as choice, there'd be no such thing as good or evil. Sure, God might know you're going to sin your selfish little heart out; it doesn't mean that God couldn't hope that you might stop yourself, find your own way, or turn your life around.Not only did God know that we would fall short, it was made possible to turn your life around. The Bible contains a blueprint for doing just that.

The concept of God and religion should be about making this world as good a place as it can be, and not the power grab that so many of its proponents seem to wield it as.The Bible actually supports that. One of the ten commandments states that "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." That's not about swearing, but reather against taking the name of God to support attrocities.

It's hardly His fault that we choose to turn from Him. Of course it's his fault (if I understand things correctly, which I probably don't). If he came and told me that if I was good I could have all sorts of fun in heaven when I die, then I would be good (in whatever sense he defined good to be). But he can't sit in silence and expect me to psychically know what I should do to avoid going to hell.

On the first question I'd have to say that the preacher was completely wrong. I believe that as long as you live a rightous life you'll be able to go to heaven.

On your second question you asked I have to say yes, God is good. My reason for this is that if we were to live perfect lives in Eden we could never experience anything but the best. If you only know the best, it is no longer good anymore. You need to have experienced sorrow to be able to comprehend happiness. In my experienced the joys I've had outweigh the sorrows so I would definately say God is good.

For most of the other topics that have evolved I agree with Gnarfflinger.

Of course it's his fault (if I understand things correctly, which I probably don't). If he came and told me that if I was good I could have all sorts of fun in heaven when I die, then I would be good (in whatever sense he defined good to be). But he can't sit in silence and expect me to psychically know what I should do to avoid going to hell.God has send his prophets and others with the responsibility to teach that gospel. Unfortunately, Satan has influenced those that didn't want to listen to give out conflicting stories to confuse the masses. This is why ethics is such a convoluted topic...

So why doesn't God fix it? Oh, because he wants people to go to hell, obviously.

Well, I believe the answer you will get to that is because it is a means to test us, to see if we are deserving of a life in heaven. Or that it is giving us the choice to make ourselves, instead of having our lives dictated.

Umm, actually, you can 'psychically' know what God wants you to do or not. You know that bad feeling when you do something wrong, that "I shouldn't have just stolen that candy bar" or "I really should have given some money to the homeless guy" or whatever it is for you? That's called a conscience. We all have one and it's meant to tell you right from wrong before you hear the Word of God. If you pay attention to it and follow it, you're still good in God's eyes, until you hear His word for yourself, then you're responsible for the whole thing. If you ignore your conscience, God isn't happy...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hardly His fault that we choose to turn from Him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it's his fault (if I understand things correctly, which I probably don't). If he came and told me that if I was good I could have all sorts of fun in heaven when I die, then I would be good (in whatever sense he defined good to be). But he can't sit in silence and expect me to psychically know what I should do to avoid going to hell. He doesn;t sit in silence. There's a nice common book which tells you what He thinks. It's called the Bible. Check your local bookshop.

If God appeared and told you He existed, then everyone would obviously worship him, eitehr through a feeling of guilt, owing Him something, or simply to get into heaven. God's supposed silence gives peoplke the chance to make up their minds free of any interference, allowing them complete free Will.

I'm a Christian and the way I've looked at the whole free will issue is God knows every single POSSIBILITY for the universe, he knows what we'll do if we do this or that. If he appeared we'd pretty much HAVE to believe him. We'd have less free will.

He doesn;t sit in silence. There's a nice common book which tells you what He thinks. It's called the Bible. Check your local bookshop. We've been down this road before. How do I know that book really contains the word of God? How do I know that L Ron Hubbard's books aren't the ones with the real word of God in them? Or that R.A. Salvatore isn't the real word of God? Or that the National Enquirer isn't the real word of God? There are so many books and words to choose from.

Bollocks. I don't buy the 'He doesn't show himself because then everyone would believe in Him' crap for a second. The more logical explanation is that He doesn't come down and show Himself is because there is no 'He' to show.

And there would be free-will still, people could still sin. Knowledge of the law and that you will be punished for breaking the law has been proven time and time again to not prevent some people from breaking the law.

Besides, if God decided to show himself I believe people would be able to converse with God on a regular basis and explain their situation to him and who knows... maybe God would allow change in what he decided was a sin and what was not to suit the socieity... as many Christians have claimed he did when going from say Leviticus to the New Testament.

In the end if God appeared to everyone and said: "I'm God, here are the rules, obey them or burn in Hell." somebody would still break said rules. But God remaining silent and damning people to Hell for not 'hearing' him (when he's remaining silent... think about it for a second) via listening to other people who are telling you to believe in something without any proof to back it is the action of a horrible, uncaring and bloody 'stupid' god.

"I'm God, here are the rules, obey them or burn in Hell." somebody would still break said rules. I agree. In fact, there would be some people who would deliberately break the rules, having heard them like that - just to contrary (or to impress their mates). Of course there would still be free will.

The more logical explanation is that He doesn't come down and show Himself is because there is no 'He' to show. Actually, the more logical explanation is because doing so would make Him ordinary. No longer a mystical figure, He'd be simply a fact of life. A ruler on high, and probably looked on as something of a despot considering the sh*t He lets happen. As it is, He's shrouded in mystery, so it's easier to ascribe good motives and doings to Him that you just can't see.

^^^
What Felinoid said.

Actually, the Bible shows that when God makes Himself known people still don't believe in Him. Consider Moses' plight in the desert. The Isralites saw Moses split the godsbedamned Red Sea with a STICK and they still turned from Him. All those bloody miracles throughout the desert and people still sinned or turned from God.

Considering the fact that people who saw miracles performed on a regular basis turned from God and you're saying that everybody would belive in God if he showed himself today actually raises a question... did God actually do those things in the Bible? The miracles, the undeniable proof of a true god. According to you if he did perform such feats EVERYBODY would believe in him. So it's logical to assume that since back in days of yore when he supposedly did perform miracles, not everybody believed in him, therefore he didn't perform said miracles at all. If no miracles are being performed then there most probably is no god (unless you want to say "There is a god, he just doesn't do anything." but that's just like my anti-tiger rock).

Gnarff,
I never thought I would see a post where you mention your willie.

As far as God being an evil bastard, He has the power to just forgive us outright or to have created us to His liking the first time around. Sacrificing an innocent Son to attone for purposely creating humans who He knew full well would end up in hell only makes Him worse.

Solomon did indeed sin against God because those evil women lead him to worship idols and other gods. *Evil Strumpets* Women seem to be the cause for much of the sin of man throughout the Bible, maybe if women had written the Bible it would be the other way around. God was angry with Solomon for turning to other gods but *not* for the thousand women he kept.

Something I would like to know is why polygamy is so frowned upon by christians. Polygamy is very prevalent in the old testament and to my recollection atleast not absent from the new testament. And not once did God say not to have more than one wife.

"I'm God, here are the rules, obey them or burn in Hell." somebody would still break said rules.If someone tried to tell me that, I know what my reply would be. Any god who forces someone to obay his laws or suffer an eternity of damnation isn't worth even thinking about beleiving in, IMO.

@ NOG, Gnarff and other pro free willers,
I unfortuantly do not believe in the concept of Free will or even fate, logically the very idea of either does not make much sense. to quote numerous authoritive sources, 'free will is an illusion'. Why? Because everything we do or say is a result of a unique combination of circumstances, factors, events, personalities and every choice to subjective to them. Furthermore, to say that if one could make that desicion again, they may have chosen another path is, also, an illusion. the exact circumstances repeated would produce the exact same result, if they did not then it would not be the same exact circumstances. To go even further than this you must also realise that choices are never repeated, fate can't exist because identical moments do not pass twice, there is only one avenue every one can go down each time we make a desicion. and if there is there is an odd choice made or some such nonesense, it is made because of perhaps unseen subtle factors, gut feeling etc. Free will and fate are simply words we place on our lives with the fantastical notion in our heads of some sort of alter dimensional plane. it isn't just arguable, the whole idea just doesn't make logical sense.
But that is just my opinion.
Based on that opinion i would say that with or without free will if God is all-knowing, which he must be or else he would not infinite, and therefore not god etc, he will, by defintion know every choice we will make.
Therefore to say that humans have free will is by very defintion denying that God is infinte. Because if he knows our desicion, then it is not unpredicatble and therefore not free.

That is my argument on that case,

As for the first question i asked the preacher. Well it appears i may have been talking with a bit of a dillusional hardliner. It is good to know that unknowing good people will get a chance. But:

Q: I am fully aware of the bible and jesus and the rest but choose not the believe. I, for the sake of discussion, have a lived a good life in every other way. If a murderer who sincerely repents may go to heaven, does a man who lives well but does not beleive get to go?

@Daie,
I was informed that in hell there would be worms, maggots, a lot of heat and a 'great gnashing of teeth'. this is, apparently according to the bible. Plus i don't think Dante counts as the word of God. Or does he?
Your position on free will and not allowing us slaves would prove that god was good, but it is not proof for his existence.


@ Gnarff: you mention a great deal about prophets spreading the word etc. all this added with the great flood and all this seems that God has made a few mistakes and wished to wipe the slate clean. infinite, all knowing beings can't make mistakes. It would be physically impossible.

@Abomination: Yes Gisborne was incredibly... interesting. Not quite as bad as Invercargill through, i think i could almost envision the 1st layer of hell being that place. Its nice to be back in Auckland where the rest of NZ hates you.


One more thing. If God made Adam in his own image. why did God have a willie?

So why doesn't God fix it? Oh, because he wants people to go to hell, obviously.He's trying. He has preachers and prophets equipped with His holy Bible, but people refuse to listen, some even preferring mockery...

Or that it is giving us the choice to make ourselves, instead of having our lives dictated.That's exactly it. He gives us the Bible as a guide book with the laws contained, but we still must choose to obey them.

That's called a conscience. We all have one and it's meant to tell you right from wrong before you hear the Word of God. If you pay attention to it and follow it, you're still good in God's eyes, until you hear His word for yourself, then you're responsible for the whole thing. If you ignore your conscience, God isn't happy...Bingo. We have a built in " :bs: detector" that helps us to know right from worng. Some of us use it less than others...

We've been down this road before. How do I know that book really contains the word of God?What NOG referred to as your conscience is God's way of telling you what is right. It will, if you prayerfully consider what is taught with real intent to learn what is right, tell you of the truth of what you read.

And there would be free-will still, people could still sin. Knowledge of the law and that you will be punished for breaking the law has been proven time and time again to not prevent some people from breaking the law.Is that supposed to come as a surprise? Even in the old testament, there are incidents where people who knew better still succumbed to temptation and committed grievous sins. King David anyone? Jonah? Balaam? Even Solomon fell. Receiving the law is one thing. Living it is another. The more you learn, the harder it is to live...

But God remaining silent and damning people to Hell for not 'hearing' him (when he's remaining silent... think about it for a second) via listening to other people who are telling you to believe in something without any proof to back it is the action of a horrible, uncaring and bloody 'stupid' god.Is He really remaining silent or is He rather instructing His servants who are then commanded to teach others what they have been taught. Those in His service have the privelidge of His Spirit to guide them in these efforts. I have experienced this when trying to teach the young men in my charge at Church.

Actually, the more logical explanation is because doing so would make Him ordinary. No longer a mystical figure, He'd be simply a fact of life. A ruler on high, and probably looked on as something of a despot considering the sh*t He lets happen.To make that which is sacred less so by making it public. It happenned with sex...

Actually, the Bible shows that when God makes Himself known people still don't believe in Him.That's because people are friggin' morons sometimes. As you mentioned, He granted Moses the ability to part the Red Sea, but after years in the wilderness, the people forgot this and felt the need for the Graven images that they were raised with in Egypt.

So it's logical to assume that since back in days of yore when he supposedly did perform miracles, not everybody believed in him, therefore he didn't perform said miracles at all.For these miracles to be effective, they need to be more personal. I can read about people in far away places being healed through their faith, but I can't fully appreciate it until I'm in the story. I remember the pain my wisdom teeth caused me, and how the blessing I got from one in authority was the only thing that took the edge off the pain so that I could rest. I can read about how sinners change their life, but they are just stories until I'm the sinner who's life is changed. To me that's incontrovetable proof of God, but to you it is just a story that some guy on a message board told...

Gnarff,
I never thought I would see a post where you mention your willie.It's rare that I can actually crack a joke in the Alleys...

As far as God being an evil bastard, He has the power to just forgive us outright or to have created us to His liking the first time around. Sacrificing an innocent Son to attone for purposely creating humans who He knew full well would end up in hell only makes Him worse.Justice and Mercy are two virtues, both equally good, but at cross purposes to each other. By giving His life for our sins, Jesus Christ takes upon us the role of mediator, enabling Justice to be satisfied and yet allow mercy to be extended to the sinners. This mediation requires faith in the mediator and our best efforts to obey His terms. Those who will not accept this mediation are then subject to Justice in full, having rejected all hope for mercy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm God, here are the rules, obey them or burn in Hell." somebody would still break said rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone tried to tell me that, I know what my reply would be. Any god who forces someone to obay his laws or suffer an eternity of damnation isn't worth even thinking about beleiving in, IMO. When you sin, you rack up a punishment list, payable at the last day. Were there no alternative for Mercy, then I'd have to agree. But Christianity also includes this alternative as I have described above. Think of it like racking up a debt with a mob boss. The day of reckoning arrives and he shows up with his goons to break your legs if you don't pay up. You don't have his money, and you plead for your life. Just as he's about to break your legs, a friend arrives with the money you owe the mobster. He agrees to turn it over on two conditions: First, the mobster agrees to take the money and leave you in peace, and secondly, you pay off the debt on his terms. The Mobster only wants his money. Do you agree to the terms of your friend or do you let the mobster break your legs?

to quote numerous authoritive sources, 'free will is an illusion'. Why? Because everything we do or say is a result of a unique combination of circumstances, factors, events, personalities and every choice to subjective to them. Furthermore, to say that if one could make that desicion again, they may have chosen another path is, also, an illusion. the exact circumstances repeated would produce the exact same result, if they did not then it would not be the same exact circumstances.So you deny human intellect or a soul? That is simply absurd and unimaginable to me.

Q: I am fully aware of the bible and jesus and the rest but choose not the believe. I, for the sake of discussion, have a lived a good life in every other way. If a murderer who sincerely repents may go to heaven, does a man who lives well but does not beleive get to go?First, I do not believe that Murderers can be truly forgiven. I believe that shedding innocent blood is outside the scope of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. AS long as you don't shed innocent blood and ultimately accept Christ (sometime before the final judgement, which will have at least a thousand years after the ressurection) you may be spared true damnation. You may not reach the Highest degree of Glory, but you won't be subject to Satan either.

you mention a great deal about prophets spreading the word etc. all this added with the great flood and all this seems that God has made a few mistakes and wished to wipe the slate clean. infinite, all knowing beings can't make mistakes. It would be physically impossible.The focus in this thread has been on God, but remember that the Bible also warns us of Satan, who tempts us and tries to lure us into misery. Satan held more influence than God in the places destroyed. This influence was so great that God destroyed the places believed completely overrun by Satan and his temptations.

One more thing. If God made Adam in his own image. why did God have a willie?Well, yes. He is our Father in Heaven after all...

So why doesn't God show himself today and prove to everybody that He is real? You answered the question before but I rebutted it and you agreed with my rebuttal...

So why doesn't he show himself? Why should we believe this 2000 year old book that's been re-written time and time again, is full of falsehoods, contradictions and is followed in a 'pick and choose' manner?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more thing. If God made Adam in his own image. why did God have a willie?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, yes. He is our Father in Heaven after all... Well, mayeb, maybe not. God isn;t human, we need to remember that. He transends humanity. Perhaps he gave Adam a willie as a method of procreating, something whioch God does not need to do.

I was informed that in hell there would be worms, maggots, a lot of heat and a 'great gnashing of teeth'. this is, apparently according to the bible. Plus i don't think Dante counts as the word of God. Or does he?As much as any otehr theologian. Dante is a nice one to work with because he explains the situation effectively. Plus, where in the Bible is the 'Lucifer' story?

Your position on free will and not allowing us slaves would prove that god was good, but it is not proof for his existence.
If I've proved that God is good, then I've proved his existance.
God is perfect.
God is good.
Something which exists is better than something which does not exist.
Therefore, to be good, God must exist.

*throws the ontological argument book away*

I will be a little off topic but one of the reasons that i don't believe in Islam is here (this is related to free will somehow):
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm

2:6 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.

2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
I am one of these disbelievers i think. But if i can't see Allah because it sealed my eyes, ears and heart than how can i be responsible for my disbelief? If i can't freely choose my path how can i be judged? AFAIK crazy people, babies, animals aren't responsible for their deeds because they don't have free will. It seems according to 2:7 disbelievers don't have free will as well. Though i will go to hell but babies, animals, crazies won't. That's not justice and it is a contradiction i think.

I think that was related to 2nd question.

And about first question, on the same page there is:
2:62 Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. And that's about first question. Though there seems to be some contradictions :
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/christians_hell.html

I think 3:85 isn't a contradiction but 5:72 is.

If I've proved that God is good, then I've proved his existance.
God is perfect.
God is good.
Something which exists is better than something which does not exist.
Therefore, to be good, God must exist.A million dollars in my bank account would be good. Therefore it must exist?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I've proved that God is good, then I've proved his existance.
God is perfect.
God is good.
Something which exists is better than something which does not exist.
Therefore, to be good, God must exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A million dollars in my bank account would be good. Therefore it must exist? The argument is hugely flawed :D

Sleep:
You are right in that every situation is unique and unrepeatable, but that is the very defeat of your arguement. No one will argue that different circumstances will lead to different results, but how can you say the same circumstances will always lead to the same results if you can never repeat the same circumstances? How do you know that free will isn't a factor? And if free will doesn't exist, then I would argue that fate very much does. If there is only one option for every choice, depending on the circumstances which are themselves the results of other 'choices', then there is only one way the universe can play out. That sounds pretty much like fate to me. So make up your mind, either you can admit there is free will, or you can admit there is fate, albeit a rather hard one.

As for your question, I believe that even murderers can be forgiven if they repent, that any sin committed against God or man can be forgiven IF YOU REPENT. Now, if you are claiming that you're 'good life' is actually a perfect life, then you have no sins to forgive and get into Heaven, sure, but are you really going to say you have never, EVER displeased God in any way, you've never even told a 'little white lie'?

That is why you must repent.

Ab:
Why should we believe this 2000 year old book that's been re-written time and time again, is full of falsehoods, contradictions and is followed in a 'pick and choose' manner? Let's clear this up right now. The Bible has been re- translated a number of times in some languages , but not all, due to changes usually in that language and not in the original text. On top of that, the text still survives in its original version (as far as we can tell, which is about 20-50 years after it was written for the NT and somewhere between 50 and 1000 or more for various parts of the OT) and original language. On top of that, I have yet to hear from ANY of the numerous people who make claims like this where there is a single falsehood in the Bible, or a single legitimate contradiction. If you want people to believe you, cite some examples. As for people who follow it in a 'pick and choose' manner, don't judge the text just because people don't always follow all of it.

Falsehood: Adam and Eve as the first humans. Moses splitting the red sea with a stick. The list goes on of things that the Bible claims happened but there has been no evidence to indicate that it did happen.

Contradictions: Leviticus, compare most to the whole of the New Testament. Leviticus says do one thing, New Testament says do another.

Pick and choose manner: following some of Leviticus and not the rest. The fact is there are things that the Bible commands but Christians don't follow it. Therefore they're 'picking and choosing' what they want to follow. The argument is hugely flawed How so? The argument you presented is that if something is good then it must exist. This is total bollocks. A cure for AIDS would be good but it doesn't exist (yet at least). When you make an argument like that one just needs to provide an example of something that would be good if it did exist to prove it wrong... or simply give an example of something that is not good that exists. "Goodness" is not reason for existance.

Free will is necessary. God could have created automatons who loved him and obeyed him without question, but what would be the point? It would be like ai programmed to do one thing and one thing only, and thus can hardly be deserving of the credit of having done the 'right' thing.

We can choose to love God, or turn away from him. Free will is what makes the choices significant, because it is obediance given, rather then forced. Imagine a loved one, would you rather he/she obey you because a)he/she has no choice in the matter or b)because they love you?

Having said that, there is a scene in Brothers Karamazov where Ivan makes up a parable, accusing God of setting high standards that only the best among men could follow (Jesus resisting temptation in the wilderness etc). Its true to an extent as well, and I'll leave it to someone wiser then me to explain why God has such stringent standards :)

Free will is what allows us to make the only choice we can. The fact that there is no other choice we would make in that situation doesn't negate that it is our will to make that one choice. In the end, free will creates fate. I know, that sounds like doublethink even to me, but it's the best way I've been able to reconcile existence.

But if there is only one choice, is it really free will? Or are you thinking of free will as you do the circumstances, where factors within this 'free will' force it to make certian decisions? Again, I would question just how free this will of yours is.

If there is only one option for every choice, depending on the circumstances which are themselves the results of other 'choices', then there is only one way the universe can play out. That sounds pretty much like fate to me. So make up your mind, either you can admit there is free will, or you can admit there is fate, albeit a rather hard oneDeterminism abd Fatalism can indeed be very similar. There is a key difference though. With fatalism, events are going to happen no matter what, regardless of the cause.

Try this argument:
(1) If determinism is true (ie. all events including human actions and choices are, without exception, completely determined), then we do not have free will and therefore cnanot be morally responsible.
(2) If indeterminism is true (ie. the opposite of determinism) then human actions are random, hence not free, so we do not have free will and therefore cannot be morally responsible.
(3) Either determinism or indeterminism is true (as stated by the Law of Excluded Middle)
(4) We are never free nor responsible for what we do.

@Rotku:
This is not logical. You make the poor assumption that if something is not determined beforehand then it must be random, which is wrong. Essentially, you are assuming the claim you are trying to make. The very essence of free will suggests the ability to make a decision at the time and not before or after. If it is determined before, by something else, then you are right that we have no free will. If it is not determined before, but also not determined at the time, then you are right that it is random, and thus not free will. But if it is not determined before, by something else, and it is determined at that moment, by the person/persons involved, then there is free will. Essentially, you are presenting false alternatives, either one extreme must be true or the other, but that need not be the case here, and excluding the middle is very dangerous indeed.

@ Dengo: You do realize that the Christians hold little value to the Qu’ran?

Falsehood: Adam and Eve as the first humans. Moses splitting the red sea with a stick. The list goes on of things that the Bible claims happened but there has been no evidence to indicate that it did happen.Adam and Eve have been dead for over 5000 years. Anyone who would remember them has likely been dead for over 4500 years. God’s word against yours. Also after Moses parted the Red Sea (over 3500 years ago anyway), the sea filled back in, obliterating any footprints or other evidence of the people of Israel passing through. Over 3500 years under the Red sea would also obliterate any traces of the Pharoah’s army. Ask any CSI detective how long it takes before evidence is lost? A lot less than 3500 years…

Contradictions: Leviticus, compare most to the whole of the New Testament. Leviticus says do one thing, New Testament says do another.Jesus Christ specifically said that in Him the law of Moses was fulfilled. What was left over from the Book of Leviticus holds over under the original law as stated in Exodus 20. The Scribes and Pharisees went nuts with this. Just like Judges and politicians do today…

Pick and choose manner: following some of Leviticus and not the rest. The fact is there are things that the Bible commands but Christians don't follow it. Therefore they're 'picking and choosing' what they want to follow.See above. The Laws were clarified by Jesus Christ. The Scribes and Pharisees hated Jesus Christ too. They wanted to stone him for healing the sick on the Sabbath. God commanded the observance of the Sabbath. The Scribes and Pharisees annotated and specified this. Jesus Christ, without violating God’s law violated the changes they made. Much of this was taking care of the stuff that the Scribes and Pharisees messed up…

Free will is necessary. God could have created automatons who loved him and obeyed him without question, but what would be the point?Exactly, if we can’t screw up, then what point is there to existence? It’s like playing a video game where you can never die…

We can choose to love God, or turn away from him. Free will is what makes the choices significant, because it is obediance given, rather then forced. Imagine a loved one, would you rather he/she obey you because a)he/she has no choice in the matter or b)because they love you?By being shunted through life it’s like waiting in line as opposed to interactive learning. Why are we here if not to learn?

Either determinism or indeterminism is true (as stated by the Law of Excluded Middle)Please explain. I don’t see those two as the only options. I see Self determinism as an option. We pick our own actions, allowing the consequences to fall where they may

God’s word against yours.Well if God would like to testify in court I'd be happy to oblige him :rolleyes:

Parting the red sea? Not possible. And if he had there would be bronze and copper weapons at the bottom of the sea, the obvious remains of the Egyptian army.

There are contradictions. It's right there on paper. You said that Leviticus is something you shouldn't follow now, so why still condemn homosexuality? There are more occurances than just Leviticus but I don't happen to have the time nor effort to point them all out. Jesus preached that one should follow the law of the country yet he ran into a temple, turning over stalls and attacking people: vandalisim and assault.

You've said before that you pick and choose. The fact that there are some parts of the Bible that you follow and some that you don't is evidence enough. Mentioned before that women shouldn't ever talk in church yet they do, obviously somebody isn't following that part of the Bible. They're picking and choosing what to follow.

[ October 07, 2006, 07:55: Message edited by: Abomination ]

I agree completely, NOG. That argument is horrible. Never liked it at all :)

Please explain. I don’t see those two as the only options. I see Self determinism as an option. We pick our own actions, allowing the consequences to fall where they mayThat's fair simple. Either statement X is true, or statement X is false, correct? Going by the same logic, either determinism is true, or it's false. If we don't have determinism, we have indeterminism (which is the lack of determinism).

Now, I'm no scientist, but I am quite sure that parting a sea would have very serious ecological effects. Think of all the currents that would be desterbed, as well as the life (both on shore and in the sea). Then you look at the effects on the land from the huge waves that would come crashing, and the terrain under the sea which would also probably have major changes. Surely some of these would be detectable.

Or what about the world been flooded with Noah?

[ October 07, 2006, 13:20: Message edited by: Rotku ]

Quote :So why doesn't God fix it? Oh, because he wants people to go to hell, obviously.

When God chooses to 'fix it', that is when God reveals his divine nature in its entirety. When that occurs, free will is taken out of the equation. Faced with the creator, one can only recognise his existance, and we will have no choice but to believe. Like I said before, God does not want converts because we fear his power, but to come to him of our own free will, based solely on the fact that he created us, loves us and sent his only son to bear the wages of our sins for us.

I still don't belive that argument for a second, Monger. As said before, God proved his existance again and again yet people still didn't believe in him, even those who bore direct witness.

I wouldn't go to God out of fear, I'd worship somebody who proved their existance to me and made it worth my while to worship them. Somebody who would actually have a conversation with me, explain things to me... not hide from me. I'd love to have a relationship with a divine being but I can't exactly open up the channel of commuication... does he have a PO Box, pager, e-mail even?

@Gnarfflinger : I know. I know the title is " A Question of Christianity, Hell and Free Will" not "Islam, Hell and Free Will". That's why I've started my post with "I will be a little off topic". I just tried to find the answers to these two questions for Islam and share my humble opinions.

Hi guys, first post!

Well, this is just a question I've been thinking about lately. It goes all the way back to Genesis. After God had created Adam and Eve, they were placed in the Garden of Eden. There were two specific trees in this Garden, the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life, but not the Tree of Knowledge. God told them that the day they eat from the Tree of Knowledge they will die. When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, the Tree of Life was taken from them, making them mortals.

Well, this is where I start wondering, what were they like before eating from the Tree of Knowledge? They most likely lacked any creativity, any imagination, they were most likely only slightly smarter than animals, but had immortality.

This leads me to believe that if we had both Life and Knowledge, we would be like God. God is basically a being who has both Life and Knowledge, humans are beings with only Knowledge, and quite likely other divine beings (angels and demons) have only Life.

The next assumption would be, if we have the Knowledge of God, why is He so much wiser and so much more intelligent than us? He is a learning being, like us humans. THAT is why He has made mistakes in the past. He makes mistakes, just like us humans, but has had so much more time to learn.

On another note, the only other being with both Knowledge and Life, is Satan. Perhaps God gave Satan both, after which Satan betrayed him, then God decided never to give anyone both again. Once again, a mistake by God, which He has learned from.

God promises to give us Life when the Messiah comes. The last question is, would this be at the cost of our Knowledge? If so, we would be back at square one. If not, we would become "Gods", which might be his master plan.

All of the above are simply theories I have thought of. I won't say it's fact, because I don't know myself, but it makes sense to me.

Welcome to the forums. And I must say you are bringing a whole new dimension to the discussion with the introduction of knowledge. If I'm not mistaken, knowledge refers to the knowledge of good and evil, which has nothing to do with creativity or imagination. Idiot savants are creative, but you wont say they are wise in any sense of the word.

I'm not saying you have to believe me, Abomination, but hear me out. It is the nature of man to turn away from God to seek his own gratification. As CS Lewis puts it, we are children who are content to make mudpies in the backyard, because we are unable to comprehend what a holiday to the beach means. And therein is the greatest sin, pride, which makes men believe they can be independent from God.

Those who have seen bore witnesses to God's presence are open to that temptation as well. After the impact of the manifestation, they want to go back to their independent ways. So, they write off the manifestation as good luck, the weather, more gravy then ghost etc.

The bible makes no qualms about servitude to God. Its all or nothing. And because we are unable to comprehend divine love, we prefer worldly pleasures. Again, I'll use a earthly imagery. Imagine the feelings of first love. There is nothing you wouldnt do for the one. However, a large part of that giving comes from the expectations of being recipocrated, which is hard to see with the divine. Unless you want to see, you wont see God's favor.

It is the nature of man to turn away from God to seek his own gratification.Interesting since God is anything but natural. He's something that occurs outside of natural law. So for man to be naturally inclined to turn away from Him would mean that there needs to be something natural about God.

If anything man opposes what it does not understand. I don't understand how there could possibly be anything supernatural and damned if I'm going to believe in something that, in a natural sense, doesn't exist. Old argument of purple space monkeys applies again, not being able to prove they don't exist doesn't mean they do.

Now if God or whatever supernatural being, if any, decides to give me some proof that they exist then by golly I'll believe in them. Till they do I won't believe in them.

Simply put, you people need to stop beliving in silent idols or deluding yourself into seeing their actions in things that occur naturally. I don't believe in God but I'm happy, I have people who love me and they don't believe in God either. He doesn't affect me in any way or anything around me in any way. So why think there needs to be something else? Is it so hard to grasp that there simply isn't a divine being?

The only time you can ever discover if religion is true or not is when you die, and by that time there's no way to record your findings, and that is the greatest cop-out of them all.

Mongerman makes some good points, just to pass some quetes

Genesis 3:

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

God directly tells us women are below men, clearly just like homosexuels they should not have the same rights as us....right?

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

This part has allways puzzled me, first off God says he has become like one off us (and he dosn't use majestetis pluralis), like as if there is more then one god.

Secondly he places guards so that man cant aquire eternel life, and be as powerfull as god(s). he shows signs of fear.

on a historicall not, the old name or address form of god, is as translated Lord God, which indicated that The lord, was not only our Lord, but lord over other gods, secondly several places in the old testemony other gods are mentioned, and the jews are often punished for worshipping them. We do know today that the jews other then The lord/jehova/jahve worshipped Bhaal and Mollok, the last being reserved as a special god for the kings.

This part has allways puzzled me, first off God says he has become like one off us (and he dosn't use majestetis pluralis), like as if there is more then one god. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three within One.

on a historicall not, the old name or address form of god, is as translated Lord God, which indicated that The lord, was not only our Lord, but lord over other gods, secondly several places in the old testemony other gods are mentioned, and the jews are often punished for worshipping them. We do know today that the jews other then The lord/jehova/jahve worshipped Bhaal and Mollok, the last being reserved as a special god for the kings. So? Just because people worshipped them, doesn;t mean they existed. Your argument here also proves the existance of God, surely? Since people worship Him, He must exist.

@Gnarf:
On the Red Sea, you're actually wrong there. You see, for a long time scientists thought the story of Moses was wrong, or at least that it wasn't the Red Sea, because the coast of most of the Red Sea is a straight drop down to the bottom of the Sea, meaning even if the Sea was split, Moses would still have cliffs to scale. A few years ago, however, they found one spot where there is quite a gentle slope down and back up. They dredged the mud there and, sure enough, among other weapons and armor that was used for hundreds of years, they also found chariot remains with a peculiar 5-spoked wheel that was specific to within a hundred years of when Moses supposedly crossed the Red Sea. They found enough of these chariot wheels to make a small army. So we've proven not only that it can happen (a sustained wind of about 57 MPH from the right direction would do it at this particular point, due to some unusual aerodynamic properties), but that it did.

Abomination and other ney-sayers:
Until you can actually prove the Bible was wrong, you're out of luck. Simply saying you don't believe something happened doesn't ammount to evidence.

Gagga:
You've got a few things wrong. The tree wasn't the tree of knowledge, it was the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Also, God never said Life and Knowledge of Good and Evil were mutually exclusive, He just the punishment for eating from the one tree was loosing the blessings of the other. He never said restoring the Life would remove the other.

On top of that, God knows all things, even things done in secret or only thought about. That's why God is so smart and wise. He didn't mess up in the past, just allowed people to mess up.

Finally, Satan doesn't have the kind of knowledge God has, nor do we. Again, the tree was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not of all knowledge. Also, no one ever said Satan had eternal life. He's very long lived, but God can kill him and will someday sentence him to the same 'second death' that sinners recieve.

All in all some well thought out theories, but based on a few misconceptions.

Abomination:
For man to have a natural reaction to something, that thing only needs to have been around at the formation of said reaction. It doesn't have to be natural itself. Thus God, who has always been, can cause a natural reaction in humans.

Equester:
Sigh. Again you are confusing authority with inherrant superiority. God made man to 'rule over' woman, but not be better, that's part of the curse I guess.

As for 'like one of us', it is commonly accepted that God (having always spoken of Himself in the plural thus far: 'Let US make man...') was refering to Himself as the trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Additionally, you'll find that the definition of 'god' in those days was not the same as we are applying today. A 'god' was an object of worship, and thus the Golden Calf became a 'god' for the Israelites.

Placing guards was not an act of fear, but of punishment. If Adam and Eve didn't see guards, they would try to get back in I guess.

EDIT: on the 'proving the Bible wrong' issue, attacking acts of God is the wrong way to go, it relies on circular logic. If you want to 'disprove the Bible', you'll have to do it from a historic stand point. For example, if archeology showed that Bethleham wasn't made until 25 AD, then obviously Jesus couldn't have been born there beforehand. Unforturnately for you, Bethleham was founded hundreds of years before that, but that's the kind of thing you should be looking for.

Until you can actually prove the Bible was wrong, you're out of luck. Simply saying you don't believe something happened doesn't ammount to evidence. "Go prove a negative!" I should really write a song with that phrase as the refrain. I could call it "Religious Defense" and make a mint off of irony-lovers alone. :money: To say nothing of all those religion-haters out there somewhere. :rolleyes:
For example, if archeology showed that Bethleham wasn't made until 25 AD, then obviously Jesus couldn't have been born there beforehand. Unforturnately for you, Bethleham was founded hundreds of years before that, but that's the kind of thing you should be looking for. Nice try, but even that isn't proof. For all we know they could have called some other place Bethlehem as well. When we're reusing place names and just tacking "New" on the front, I wouldn't be surprised if places got named after each other. Hell, I live in Madison, but that doesn't even tell you what state I'm in (I think there's at least three in the US)! Not to mention a confusing little town called Oregon, Wisconsin.

Until you can actually prove the Bible was wrong, you're out of luck. Simply saying you don't believe something happened doesn't ammount to evidence. But it also doesn't tell me the Bible is right. Which is the difficulaty I have all along. At some point, you have to take a punt and say "OK. This is the thing I am going to believe." because it seems to be so difficult to prove anything (or even come up with strongly persuasive evidence) about which religion, if any, has got it right.

"So? Just because people worshipped them, doesn;t mean they existed. Your argument here also proves the existance of God, surely? Since people worship Him, He must exist"

@Daie d'Malkin if you had read all my post you would notice that.

A) I dont believein the bible or any gods at all.

B) that im taking does parts out of the bible to show where it contradict itself and

C) to show that the bible might condemn homosexuality but it also says women are inferior to men, yet i hear none of the people who uses the bible as an argument for not giving homosexuals the same rights as hetero sexual, use it to say that women shouldn't have the same right as men. which should prove at least that they either fear women to much or dosn't fully believe in the bible.

oh and to you father, son, holy spirit.

good job commending without thinking, the genesis is written roughly 4000years before jesus christ and the invention of the holy spirit, futher more the holy trinity is first accepted as churche dogma at a church convent over 300years after jesus's death...

NOG you have to get fact about the Holy trinity thumbed into your head to. you can't apply the wholy trinity to the old testemony, because it dosn't exist at that point.

oh and to you father, son, holy spirit.

good job commending without thinking, the genesis is written roughly 4000years before jesus christ and the invention of the holy spirit, futher more the holy trinity is first accepted as churche dogma at a church convent over 300years after jesus's death...Well golly susan, don;t you think that the Christians might have ALTERED the bible over the last 2000 years?


@Daie d'Malkin if you had read all my post you would notice that.

A) I dont believein the bible or any gods at all.

B) that im taking does parts out of the bible to show where it contradict itself... Good job commenting without thinking. I didn;t state that you did, only that your convoluted attempt toprove the existance of other gods, also proved your own views wrong. Hoisted by your own petard.
And, thank you for clarifying that you don;t believe in God. I hadn;lt caught that, the waves of bias floored me somewhat. I thought before I commented, but obviously it's a difficult concept to grasp.

don;t you think that the Christians might have ALTERED the bible over the last 2000 years? Which supports my questions of how we can tell that Bible still represents the official Word of God. Maybe its been amended completely out of context. How do we know whether it is still valid or not?

@Fel:
Don't worry, I hadn't intended them to prove a negative, but I only see two options:
1.) Christians prove EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE true, which much of it has been and more of it is every year, but which would still take centuries more at the least.
2.) Atheists cast ONE EVENT into significant legitimate doubt. I would even consider my Bethleham example legitimate doubt because the Jews didn't generally name one place after another at the time, but it still COULD happen. A better example would be the battle of Jericho. If you could prove to me that the walls of Jericho survived for 100 years past when the Bible says they were destroyed, you would have cast that event in the Bible into significant legitimate doubt.

@HB:
You're right, not proving it wrong doesn't prove it right. Archeologists, scientists, and historians prove it right, and have been doing so for centuries. Many nations and events described in the Bible were thought to be fictional by science and historians until records from other societies were found that coroborated the Bible, proving within reasonable certainty that that event did happen exactly the way the Bible says it did. Now that's not reason alone to believe EVERYTHING in the Bible is true, but it's a step.

@Equester:
The holy trinity may not have been officially named until 300 AD, but it is clearly spelled out in the New Testament, when Jesus is talking about the 'helper' or 'Spirit' that He would send them after his ascention. As for Jesus's birth, read the opening of John agian. It says that Jesus was from the beginning, and only took on human form at His birth.

Even the ancient Jews refered to God in the plural, though I'm not sure if that was in a "We are not ammused" royalty sense or in a trinity-like sense.

@Daie:
Well golly susan, don;t you think that the Christians might have ALTERED the bible over the last 2000 years? Actually, no. You want to know how I can say that? Because we have copies of the New Testament books going back to between 20 and 50 years after they were originally written. Guess what, they're the same as today. Word for word in the original language. The Old Testament books aren't much worse off. The oldest surviving copies have a bit broader range of time from the original writing, but the modern hebrew versions are still word-for-word identical to the versions written almost 3000 years ago. If you're going to say that all the changes that would ever be made over 2000 years for the new and between 3000 and 5000 for the old were made in between 20 and a few hundred years (for old and new respectively), then such drastic changes could only have been forseen and accepted by the divine will of God Himself, thus they're still valid. :D

then such drastic changes could only have been forseen and accepted by the divine will of God HimselfHow do you know this? Did he tell you? Prove it.

The wording he's using there shows he's making an assuption, based on what he does know. He's not claiming to have proof, unless I'm misunderstanding him.

NOG, I've always accepted that many of the events told in the bible are fairly accurate. It is a source of history. Where my doubt comes into play, with regards to the accuracy of it, is when you bring in the metaphysical elements of it - whether it be walking on water, turning a river to blood, or creating the world in seven days. These things, and those similar, as far as I am aware have not been proven true.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

But if I am right, then sure, the Bible can be used as a good history source, but using it as a divinely given dogma may be pushing it a bit too far. Prehaps we should use Homer's works as a base for a religion? (Yes, I know that most of it is fictional, but I'm sure you get the point).

There are contradictions. It's right there on paper. You said that Leviticus is something you shouldn't follow now, so why still condemn homosexuality? There are more occurances than just Leviticus but I don't happen to have the time nor effort to point them all out.From the Homosexuality thread: Leviticus has historical records of the laws of the state of Israwel and the laws given by God throught his prophets. Homosexuality is condemnded by the Laws of God, while Shellfish and pork were forbidden by the laws of the land.

Mentioned before that women shouldn't ever talk in church yet they do,Translational difference: I have the word Rule in place of Speak. Big difference.

That's fair simple. Either statement X is true, or statement X is false, correct? Going by the same logic, either determinism is true, or it's false. If we don't have determinism, we have indeterminism (which is the lack of determinism).Does not apply. Determinism and indeterminism can be listed as a spectrum. Just as coldness is an absence of heat, indeterminism is a lack of determinism. This is not a binary choice. The degree of freedom of will and choice comes from a number of options. I have several choices as to which pair of socks I will wear to church in the morning. I am free to choose which one I wear.

As said before, God proved his existance again and again yet people still didn't believe in him, even those who bore direct witness.Those who will not believe after bearing direct witness are then damned. We will have that perfect witness at the Last day, when we sit before God and plead with Jesus for Mercy for our sins.

I'd love to have a relationship with a divine being but I can't exactly open up the channel of commuication...It's called prayer. You have the faith to pray, you get your answer via the Holy Ghost. Without that faith, you don't get confirmation of that which you have faith in.

The bible makes no qualms about servitude to God. Its all or nothing. And because we are unable to comprehend divine love, we prefer worldly pleasures.That is exactly part of the problem. We lose the Divind, eternal perspective, and settle for a fleeting, momentary pleasure...

Which supports my questions of how we can tell that Bible still represents the official Word of God. Maybe its been amended completely out of context. How do we know whether it is still valid or not?Actually, Some parts have been mangled, but enough remains in tact to teach the basics of morality. Prophets have corrected it in the latter days...

Looking at the bible as definate proof of God's existance is doubtful. Atheists have it right when they say that as long as one point is proven wrong, the whole truth is thrown into doubt. With so many historical events/ambiguities in the bible, its easy to throw many, not to say one point into question.

As a past atheist, I know how atheist detest being preached to. Being in the realm of the metaphysical, the existance of God cannot be proved, nor can it be disproved. As long as you look for it, arguments for God not existing and disproving the bible are everywhere. Even christians today are unable to decipher every ambiguity in the bible. Hence, every atheist posting here has a valid point for doubting God, especially when it comes to the bible.

Sure you can be happy without God. Love, luxuries, riches, success are all pleasures. Its when you ask yourself, so what? that you begin to look at life and the meaning behind it in a new light. Solomon, with hundreds of wifes and all the riches of the world, said that all earthly possessions are vanity. Tolstoy, at the prime of his life, asked himself the same thing. With all the riches, a loving family, his literary reputation established, he still asked, so what? Buddha himself could not reconcile life with a meaningless cycle of birth, pain and suffering for no rhyme and reason.

So many great men have achived much on earth, only to realise that in the end lies only death and dust. Without God, nothing we say or do in our life can have an impact beyond our deaths. Sure charities are still carried out in the name of mother teresa etc etc. But in the long run, does it matter if one, or even millions more people die? Without God, eventually the human race will peak, begin its inevitable decline, the sun will explode in a nova, and the story of the humans will be as nothing in the eternity of space.

If an atheist can accept this scenario, and accept that he/she is a random being, doomed to nothing beyond death, then so be it. But if you ever wonder if there is a reason to life, you cant run away from the concept of the eternal.

Finally, to answer the original posts questions. The bible has stated that God will not return till all the tribes have heard the Gospel. As for those who have died before hearing it, there are many theories. I myself adopt CS Lewis's take, which states that even those who do evil in God's name are damned, while those who do good and repent, even in the name of another God, is blessed.

As for your friend, whom you say is a better person then you, remember that when we are judged, it is by a judge who can tolerate no sin. By that measure, all of us are sinners, even the best of people. The only way we could be reconciled was if someone paid the price of sin for us. But i wont go into that. You've heard enough of that:)

And as I mentioned before, free will is required for un-conditional love, which is how God wants us to come to him. You are right in saying God knew many would turn away from him, but it was a risk he was willing to take.

[ October 08, 2006, 11:53: Message edited by: Mongerman ]

Does not apply. Determinism and indeterminism can be listed as a spectrum. Just as coldness is an absence of heat, indeterminism is a lack of determinism. This is not a binary choice. The degree of freedom of will and choice comes from a number of options. I have several choices as to which pair of socks I will wear to church in the morning. I am free to choose which one I wear.Umm... let me see. How best to answer this. "No" might work. As Indeterminsim is simply anything that is not determinism, there is no spectrum involved. Something is either determined or it isn't. Indeterminism is true if even one event in your life is not determined. There is no inbetween. None.

If an atheist can accept this scenario, and accept that he/she is a random being, doomed to nothing beyond death, then so be it. But if you ever wonder if there is a reason to life, you cant run away from the concept of the eternal.A random being wouldn't be the word I use. Insignificant, would probably be more fitting. Atleast when you are talking about a grander sense - throughout all of time or even just space. But on a smaller, more comprehendable scale, everyones life can have great meaning.

Why does a reason behind life have to look over eternity? Can't you just be contempt to have a shorter term meaning? Whether it is to live a happy life with your family, to invent a cure to some disease or some such. All of these can still be meanings/reasons for living and perfectly good ones. Sure, in a million years no one would care, but my question is does that really matter? Give it a bit longer and the human race will be gone. But once again, what does that matter to now or even to the forseeable future?

I used the word random, because without divine guidance, all creation is merely a random cohesion of molecules.

I wont dispute that life can have great meaning on the small scale. And as to your query, i have often asked myself the same thing. Some people are satisfied with little, just like some people are never satisfied even with riches. If God created them that way, is it their fault? Similarly, some people are happy to live life day by day, with no thoughts to the afterlife. Again, if God made them that way, is it their fault? I'll leave it to someone wiser to answer that, cos i cant :)

I used the word random, because without divine guidance, all creation is merely a random cohesion of molecules.Ah, in that sense, yes, random is a fitting word.

Another problem arises for me when I think about an afterlife. I do not see how it is possible for me to live after my death. Someone trying to tell me that I will live after I'm dead just doesn't make sense to me. But then I'm not even sure I understand the common Christian view on it, so unless someone tries to explain it to me, I won't comment there.

Thanks for your pm Rotku. By the way, your inbox is full.

How do you live on after death? The simple answer is that we are actually our soul, and the body is just a temporary housing. Not sure if thats the answer you're looking for though.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say MOST people are looking for God, whether or not they know it. I'll clarify some points first.

1. God is love eternal
2. In God's eternal love is true happiness

Now that that is out the way, I'll use another analogy from CS Lewis. The soul is like an engine, and the fuel it runs on is God's love. The constant pursuit of happiness and improvement is but mankind's attempt to find another kind of fuel for the spirit. And I think most people can relate to this. You bask in the happiness of first love, but that soon fades away. You make your first million, and soon you're hankering for the second. You move to the place of your dreams, but soon that seaside villa looks tempting. And so on. The happiness and pleasures offered by this world is never enough.

So now i have established that MOST people are always after more happiness, riches etc (doubt anyone will contradict me here). Does it not stand to reason that if our instincts seek something, that something must exist? Case in point. We hunger, there is such a thing as food. We thirst, there is such a thing as water. We lust, there is sexual gratification. Hence, if we seek permanent, everlasting happiness, there should be something that can satisfy that seeking. That something cannot be found on the material plane, and hence we must look further, into the realms of the metaphysical.

Actually, no. You want to know how I can say that? Because we have copies of the New Testament books going back to between 20 and 50 years after they were originally written. Guess what, they're the same as today. Word for word in the original language. The Old Testament books aren't much worse off. The oldest surviving copies have a bit broader range of time from the original writing, but the modern hebrew versions are still word-for-word identical to the versions written almost 3000 years ago. If you're going to say that all the changes that would ever be made over 2000 years for the new and between 3000 and 5000 for the old were made in between 20 and a few hundred years (for old and new respectively), then such drastic changes could only have been forseen and accepted by the divine will of God Himself, thus they're still valid. Yeah, I see ypour point. My use of the word 'altered' was wrong. I didn;t mean intentionally. I mean more of the sort of translational difficulties, and misunderstadnings which impair study of the Bible. These do happen, and can result innewer editions containing mistakes. One of the things we did in our philosophy class was to compair different edityions of Bibles, and then tp compare them tp the pother two books

No NOG its not and I queted the old testemony so no mather what you cant apply the holy trinity to my quote, secondly to Daie d'Malkin, most likely translation altered some bids of the bible, but if they sat down and changed bits of it, they would come up with one serious problem, whic is the core of this descoution, the fact that they would be changing the words of god and thereby thier belive, secondly we have the earlier transcriptions of the old testemony, both in jewidism and in the earliest christian versions, so we know for a fact they havent changed them.

So no, no mather what, you cant apply the wholy trinity to any part of the old testemony, since it was writen by people who dont believe in jesus christ or the holy spirit.
but of cause if you choose to ignore facts, you can argue and do whatever you want.

What exactly are those "sons of God" mentioned in the 6th chapter of Genesis, who mate with human females? After all, the New Testament cites Jesus as God's only son.

@Abomination:
How do you know this? Did he tell you? Prove it. Excuse me for my slight hyperbole, they could have done it with a time machine and mass hypnosis, too. Seriously, though, the changes you are suggesting in the time that is available for them to have been made is unrealistic.

@Rotku:
These things, and those similar, as far as I am aware have not been proven true. Mmm, there's some heavy evidence for a few, like a global food and the ten plagues, though they explain them in a scientific manner, thus not making the event itself supernatural, but for the most part you're right, I can't prove it to you. Just so long as you don't use that lack of proof to try and say it didn't happen or couldn't happen, we'll be fine.

using it as a divinely given dogma may be pushing it a bit too far. But it claims to be just that. Thus you either have to accept it as such or reject it as such, but since everything that has been tested so far has been proven right, throwing it out as an unrealistic claim, or even 'going too far' is rushing things a bit, especially when you throw in the matter of prophecy. When parts of a book that were written hundreds of years before an event predict the event with detail, you tend to pay attention.

@Gnarf:
Translational difference: I have the word Rule in place of Speak. Big difference. And even if speak is right, it is applied to a specific situation, not as an all around rule, so either way it isn't saying that women are inferior in any way.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd love to have a relationship with a divine being but I can't exactly open up the channel of commuication...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's called prayer. You have the faith to pray, you get your answer via the Holy Ghost. Without that faith, you don't get confirmation of that which you have faith in. Exactly, God doesn't answer prank calls, but He'll answer a genuinly curious call, even if it's a wrong number.

Actually, Some parts have been mangled, but enough remains in tact to teach the basics of morality. Prophets have corrected it in the latter days... Readers, please understand that Gnarf believes the original texts were mistranslated acording to the Mormon prophet, much like Muslims believe Jesus's claims to divinity were added later on. Just want to make sure everyone understands the whole situation here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As said before, God proved his existance again and again yet people still didn't believe in him, even those who bore direct witness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who will not believe after bearing direct witness are then damned. We will have that perfect witness at the Last day, when we sit before God and plead with Jesus for Mercy for our sins.You're missing the point of the argument. Before I asked why God doesn't prove to everybody, beyond all doubt, that He is real. To prove once and for all what is correct rather than let everyone live in sin because they don't know any better. Why should somebody believe what some guy with a white collar and a book with a cross on it says over that other guy with a square beard and his book with the Star of David on it, or that guy wearing the turban and the book with a crescent on it, or that guy in the orange robes, or that guy praying to that statue with elephant heads and six arms? Each have compelling arguments, each fall short of being able to be proven beyond a doubt yet one comes with something along the lines of "Do as this book tells you or suffer."

Why doesn't God or whoever sort all that out? Help all these people not go to hell for not following Him? The argument given was that if he was to prove himself to all then there would be no free will. But that was refuted and although you didn't actually say so you admitted that the reason given was incorrect because apparently God has done that before yet people still didn't follow Him. Why does God force people to have faith when He could allow people to 'know'? Excuse me for my slight hyperbole, they could have done it with a time machine and mass hypnosis, too. Seriously, though, the changes you are suggesting in the time that is available for them to have been made is unrealistic.How is it unrealistic? An argument was presented that you believe God intended something when there is nothing in God's writing about whatever his intention was. I believe all Christians agree it's not anyone's place to assume what God intends and all should accept that whatever He does is in our best interests. Many an argument has been made defending the questions such as "Why?" via "because God intends us to do <such and such>" when there is no recording of God ever saying "I want you to do <this and this> and that is why I have given you <these> laws/rules.". quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd love to have a relationship with a divine being but I can't exactly open up the channel of commuication...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's called prayer. You have the faith to pray, you get your answer via the Holy Ghost. Without that faith, you don't get confirmation of that which you have faith in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly, God doesn't answer prank calls, but He'll answer a genuinly curious call, even if it's a wrong number.I have been genuinly curious time and time again yet I've never recieved an answer, not even the hint of an answer, no signs, nothing. But apparently it's because I don't have faith or something, but this was when I DID have faith, I WAS a Christian. The problem was I kept encountering all these questions along the lines of 'why is this?' 'what if this happens?' and having no way to get a clear answer. As our world view grew we realised there were people who had never heard of God and those people hadn't heard of God for many years, entire generations would have gone to hell because according to the Bible, the ten commandments that everyone holds in such high regard, that you shall not worship any other god or idol bar God. I feel seriously sorry for all those hindu, confucian, shinto, sho, celt, saxon, nordic tribes and religions that will burn in hell for eternity because God didn't get around to spreading his word to them.

The other bit was the so called 6000 year old earth or whatever and carbon-dated fossils of human skeletal remains exceeding that time. When the foundation is proven wrong, well, the whole tower of cards comes a'tumblin' down.

What exactly are those "sons of God" mentioned in the 6th chapter of Genesis, who mate with human females? After all, the New Testament cites Jesus as God's only son.God is the father of our souls. As such, we are all brothers and sisters of the same divine father in Heaven. Does that help?

Why doesn't God or whoever sort all that out? Help all these people not go to hell for not following Him?It will happen, but it's going to take a really long time...

An argument was presented that you believe God intended something when there is nothing in God's writing about whatever his intention was.In the Red Sea story (I still call it the Red Sea for convenience), it was so that his people (the direct decendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) could leave the oppressive bondage of Egypt. Many of the answers you seek are in the Bible, but it's a huge book (arguably a 66 book volume), which is a heavy read. Even harder to memorize the whole thing, but parts of it are easier to remember than others...

I have been genuinly curious time and time again yet I've never recieved an answer, not even the hint of an answer, no signs, nothing. But apparently it's because I don't have faith or something, but this was when I DID have faith, I WAS a Christian.Taking you at your word that your faith was in Jesus Christ, I should point out that these answers are not (usually not anyway, but there have been exceptions) grand displays, but through a feeling of peace or a thought that comes to mind and comforts you. The Holy Ghost has been described as a "still small voice". It is easy to miss if you are otherwise distracted...

So what about all those people who have gone to Hell because nobody told them that if they continue to worship these other "false" gods and idols they will go to Hell? So sad, too bad, suffer for eternity?

This question has been answered before in this same thread, maybe I can add that God is perfect in everything He does, so He will give these people what they deserve.
The great thing about this is that we don't have worry about the fate of your hypothetical people. So instead of asking about them, you should better think a bit about yourself, who heard a lot about all this stuff but try to disprove it..

Mmm, there's some heavy evidence for a few, like a global food and the ten plagues, though they explain them in a scientific manner, thus not making the event itself supernatural, but for the most part you're right, I can't prove it to you. Just so long as you don't use that lack of proof to try and say it didn't happen or couldn't happen, we'll be fine.I'm going to call bull**** on this one, if you don't mind, and ask for you to provide sources. I am quite certain that there isn't evidence for a global flood (assuming you meant flood, not food there :p ), and haven't heard of this evidence for the plagues, as you say.

This question has been answered before in this same thread, maybe I can add that God is perfect in everything He does, so He will give these people what they deserve.The answer given had no biblical backing. According to the 10 Commandments those people would go to Hell.

@Abomination:
Why should somebody believe what some guy with a white collar and a book with a cross on it says over that other guy with a square beard and his book with the Star of David on it This is a good question, and if it came down to just that, I wouldn't have an answer for you. The answer, though, is that when you really listen to them with an open mind, willing to accept that one of them may be right, you hear more than just the people speaking. When one of them speaks, something else speaks softly to your heart, and you KNOW that it's right. But you must be willing to listen with your heart and mind as well as your ears.

How is it unrealistic? An argument was presented that you believe God intended something when there is nothing in God's writing about whatever his intention was. Umm, I thought we were arguing about whether or not the Bible had been changed since the original people wrote the original books. When did we get into arguements of what God intended. On that matter, though, there are plenty of places where God tells us what He intended. God's rules tell us what He intended. God's prophecies tell us what He intended and intends. The Bible's chalk full of God telling us His intentions.

The problem was I kept encountering all these questions along the lines of 'why is this?' 'what if this happens?' and having no way to get a clear answer. But the answers are out there. I've answered every one of your problems. Take, for example, the people that never hear of God. Well, they aren't immediately condemned to hell, they're judged by what they knew and how they acted. As for the age of the Earth, I've discussed that with you in the past, too, and how the Bible never actually says how old the Earth is, and those that say it does don't know what they're talking about. I encourage you to critically look at how they came to those conclusions because you'll see the problems in their arguements.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly are those "sons of God" mentioned in the 6th chapter of Genesis, who mate with human females? After all, the New Testament cites Jesus as God's only son.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God is the father of our souls. As such, we are all brothers and sisters of the same divine father in Heaven. Does that help? Only partly. There are two major beliefs as to what this may mean.
1.) Fallen angels married human women, frequently accredited with Nephilim (or giants like Goliath) as offspring.
2.) Others believe the 'sons of God' refer to holy and righteous men, probably descendants of Seth whereas the 'daughters of men' would be evil and promiscuous women, probably Cainites. A few even suggest that these may have been cro-magnon women or other homosapien groups that may have still survived at the time.
Either way, the 'sons of God' is not intended to be literal.

@Aikanaro:
How about evidence that until about 5000 BC there was a thin layer of liquid water in the upper atmosphere. It changed the way the light shone on the Earth, causeing a number of plant and mineral formation that can only be explained this way. For some reason, we don't know why, it collapsed around that time, raining what would be considered massive amounts of water onto the Earth, which would likely have had a very low humidity at that time. You want a global flood, imagine what would happen if all the ice in the world melted and most of the humidity came out of the atmosphere. It likely formed about 500 million years ago, causing a massive planetary drought that caused the single largest species extinction in known planetary history (this was well before the dinosaurs, by the way).