=D>

Life is like a game of Sim City.

And god forgot to turn off Disaster Mode.

I have, at no point in this thread discredited his belief, but I'm also trying to understand the reasoning for his beliefs. Jst gotta have faith and bleieve in things doesn't do it for me, it's not enough for me to accept something. If it is for him, then good. He can do that. But I thought this thread was a discussion on religion in general. If we're jsut supposed to have the empty, shallow, I'm a catholic, im a muslim, im an atheist response, then I don't want to have anything do with it as i can post one word/phrase answers in nearly every other thread on the forums.


I have said I will not accept things just because "they are" and asked for someone, anyone to give a more thorough explanation of why I should "believe" If I at any point in this thread said he did not have the right to believe what he wants, even if I find it completely wrong and doesn't make sense, then point it out right now and I will apologize for doing so. Did I discredit his religion? Duh. I find it illogical. If I found any logic in it I would be a Christian myself. That in no way says I don't think he has the right to believe what he believes.

I aked for question about wether he, or anyone, could see the God he described as an asshole...if in any other person/being that's what it would be considered. I think maybe people think I'm jsut trying to start trouble, or an arguement? I'm trying to understand. Is that wrong? IT was a hypothetical question in any case, if I don't believe such a God, in the form he described it, to exist, how can I think a non existant being is an asshole or anything else?

If, even though it wasn't my intention, MG tells me right now he felt offended by any single thing i said...i want him to feel free to say it to me right now, and I WILL apologize.


But I will not apologize for having an opinion, and responding by posting my opinion after MG posted his opinion in saying he believed in a God and a system which meant going to heaven if you accepted the lord, hell if you didn't...or whatever he said in his original post, I can't remember the wording exactly.

Although I am an atheist-agnostic I still know the problems with this question. Here is the main problem though; nothing may seem beyond God's power - EXCEPT the logically IMPOSSIBLE! And that is were the argument fails. It is asking whether or not God can do the logically impossible, which is a totally meaningless question, and therefore of no use one way or another. It's like asking "Can God make a circular triangle?" The answer is "no" because there IS no circular triangle to be made! So can God to the possible and "impossible"? Yes, but can he do the logically IMPOSSIBLE? No.

Not to say it's a bad argument but after examined it falls flat on its face.

But God is supposed to make the impossible possible, right? Or is there some sort of a line drawn that I've not heard of? (I'm being rhetorical.)

Your question is basically asking "Can God do what he cannot do?" which is logically incoherent. God can do everything - except the logically impossible because there is not a "there" to be done - such as with Circular triangles or your rock question. You're argument is called a fallacy of Contradictory Premises and is just silly world play. It may sound great at first but it's just about as convincing as "Jesus loves you!" from a Christian. There are far greater arguments youve probably heard of about the existence of (mainly the Christian...) God. Such as Free Will vs. Omniscience, All-loving and all knowing/omnipotence, a perfect being creating imperfect beings, etc etc.

The funny thing about that is that Earth in many ways seems like purgatory.

It is neither heaven nor hell. It seems like a balance of each. Hell for some in many ways. Heaven for some in many ways. For a lot of us, a balance of both.

Maybe we are already in purgatory and dont know it. Maybe thats what Earth really is. Spooky, Spooky, Spooky. Where's Carol Ann, the poltergeists, and that ringing play telephone? I'm waiting for a call.

It would also explain why everything people love seems to be so bad for them. Cookies, Birthday Cakes, Beer, jumping from the top of buildings. You name it.

No, you didn't offend me or anything. This is what my religion is about. Telling others about it.

DAMN, is it that easy?

Wow.. Nice reading guys

I officially vote for Box as our new Pope.

I follow Larry's independent believer's system, not some half cocked farce that was cooked up and handed down by the most untrustworthy and vile people that you'd ever want to meet. Those folks couldn't even throw a frisbee, so why would anyone expect them to have had the secrets of the universe in their possession?

Ok, let's try a new method for today. Rather than poking holes in the Bible, which is too easy, let's try debating the methods of this alleged "god".

What drove "god" to sort of "reform" from the OT to the NT? In the OT he has the liking of killing of a maniacal dictator (I don't see how anyone could debate how the OT "god" is not driven by extreme cruelty), in the NT, he sends down his "son" to sort of clean the slate. His "son" is a bleeding-heart liberal, hanging out with the poor and even prostitutes, trying to help them, when in the OT "god" would have wiped them out sooner (at least the prostitutes) than guide them to his "light".

What do you think made "god" change, box, and why?

I am Christian.

How does he even know Jesus existed? There is no evidence a man named Jesus even existed in Palestine 2000 years ago! That's why Christians rely on "faith" and not "evidence" as a cop out so they dont have to prove God existed. However not all Christians are like this - but I have still yet to see evidence he existed. All I get is some hearsay (Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, etc), frauds (burial box of James, shroud of turin, Pilate's letters, etc) or the bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Jesus is most likely a fictional character. Facts derive from evidence, yet there is no evidence Jesus existed. MG Casey said "I know am I..." But does he really KNOW or is it just faith?

Although I am not Christian and I am not Box. I think I can give a pretty good explanation on why this happens. In the OT, there is no Jesus. So therefore in the OT when you sin - you die (or sacrifice) - but in the NT, when you sin, you ask Jesus and you're saved. God felt mercy on his people and sent his son down to die, and that's why he became so loving. Because of Jesus. Hope this helped!

Wrong.

Free Will is not biblical and even contradicts the bible (Ephesians 1:5 speaks of Predestination - that's one of the many verses as well). God never mentions free will and he never told Adam and Eve they had free will: because if he did, would he REALLY punish them for a) USING their free will God gave them? and b) they were basically influenced hardcore by that serpant?

And the free will excuse does not cut it. Adam made the mistake - even if he had free will, he still made a mistake. By making that mistake he proved he was imperfect and therefore God is not perfect. Someone once told me a good tree cannot create a bad fruit (guess who? :wink:) - same with perfection. Perfection cannot begit imperfection. Free Will does not HAVE to include evil or mistakes. You can have free will without choosing evil. For example; should I go in my room or the kitchen? Free will - but is there any evil or mistakes involved? No.

Also, Free will contradicts omniscience. God always claims he is omniscient (Rev. 19:6 I believe is one of the times he claims to be omnipotent/omniscient, etc). But how can you know the future yet still have free will?

1. I have 2 choices: A and B.
2. God KNOWS before I choose it that I will choose B.
3. Can I choose A?

No, I cannot choose A. If I do choose it God is not omniscient, if I dont choose it God already predestined it for me.

BTW, where is Jewish. Some people are Jewish you know.

Bah, Boethius figured the answer to this one. I think he called it the difference between Free Will and Providence.
While God knows which choice you will choose, you still made the active choice to choose it. Just bc he/she knows the outcome does not mean that you were not allowed to choose it. I'll try to find soemthing on the net that articulates the argument better than my own words.

Everyone who is Jewish should just vote Buddhist, then we can have a fairly accurate count and just subtract one for Amit.

Archie, then we could all join the ranks of eonard Cohen, Madonna, and the Beastie Boys. \:D/

Kaballah and Yoga for everyone!

If you read what I said: we are NOT allowed to choose it because he knew BEFORE hand. Now, answer my question. It is a yes or no question. I COULD choose A - but then God is not omniscient. So, if there is free will, why can't I choose A?

I think you meant that I still have the OPTION A that means it's free will. However, can I CHOOSE A? Yes, I have the OPTION to - but CAN I?

Read my reply to Libs. I accidentally hit "Submit" before I added "Judaism, Hinduism, Wiccism, Deist, Individual Theist, and other." But I can't edit polls so I can't change that.

You can choose whatever option you want, God will know which one you choose, but you still chose it. There you go free will and omniscience in one.

That has nothing to do with my question. You CAN'T choose which one you want: If I choose A, he is not omniscient because he KNEW I would choose B. I did not "choose" B - I was basically forced too. If I absolutely cannot choose A - which I can't, then it is not a choice but it was predestined and therefore there is no free will. Now, answer the question: Can I choose A? Yes or no. Simple as that.

MG-does that mean that being a Christian gives you a get-out-of-jail (Hell) for free card? (Again, I'm being rhetorical.)