Which God To Believe In

[Open_Minded]

And Freeday ... You claim to worship ONE GOD....

 

So... and I've brought this up before ... how can anything, anyone, any part of the universe ... exist beyond - outside -apart from this ONENESS you call God?

 

In short - why are you even asking "which God to believe in"? There can only be ONE eternal, infinite, ONENESS...

 

Can I get an answer anytime soon, Feeday.

[scotter]

i won't even go into them.

 

That says it all.

 

-----

 

How about one more request Freeday? Would you like to audit An Introduction to NT course in the nearby college that has a theology / religious studies faculty? (Is this request decent and faithful enough?) There you would learn about textual criticism, redaction analysis (of the Gospels' authorship). And those would be helpful to your belief.

 

That's all I ask now.

 

**Edit**

 

Freeday did you have Mormons approach you before? And you had yourself read Christian apologetic publications against Mormonism e.g. the inconsistency of Joseph Smith's revelation experience, the controversial gold templates.....And the Mormons would reply that they would stick to their beliefs, although they acknowledge the points your raised.

 

It is good that you personally go through this experience (you reply to my PBS post and unchanged position is not unexpected), and you have more understanding of people's faith process and psychology.

 

Take care.

[freeday]

And Freeday ... You claim to worship ONE GOD....

 

So... and I've brought this up before ... how can anything, anyone, any part of the universe ... exist beyond - outside -apart from this ONENESS you call God?

 

In short - why are you even asking "which God to believe in"? There can only be ONE eternal, infinite, ONENESS...

 

Can I get an answer anytime soon, Feeday.

 

i agree with you "there can be only one" as stated in highlander. as far as living apart from God, i answered that in another post. you must have missed it. i will try and find it later.

 

in short, as stated by the law of parity, if God created goodness, it would allow any free will creature to chose the opposite, therefore evil was made as a direct result of the creation of goodness. since evil as a mere concept is powerless, thus it became personified when the free will creature satan CHOOSE to defy God and exist independently of God's objectives.

[Asimov]

What law of parity? If God is Good then he didn't create it.

[freeday]

i won't even go into them.

 

That says it all.

 

-----

 

How about one more request Freeday? Would you like to audit An Introduction to NT course in the nearby college that has a theology / religious studies faculty? (Is this request decent and faithful enough?) There you would learn about textual criticism, redaction analysis (of the Gospels' authorship). And those would be helpful to your belief.

 

That's all I ask now.

 

**Edit**

 

Freeday did you have Mormons approach you before? And you had yourself read Christian apologetic publications against Mormonism e.g. the inconsistency of Joseph Smith's revelation experience, the controversial gold templates.....And the Mormons would reply that they would stick to their beliefs, although they acknowledge the points your raised.

 

It is good that you personally go through this experience (you reply to my PBS post and unchanged position is not unexpected), and you have more understanding of people's faith process and psychology.

 

Take care.

 

i would like to take a course in that, i have read some breif articles before, but nothing that organized. As a christian i should not be scared to educate myself, to not do so, would be to not trust the Word of God. but i have other things i would like to do with my money than audit a 300 class. i have other hobbies to, other than coming on here and heckling you guys. As far as the mormon thing. that is too funny you bring it up. my sister, who is a christian, married a mormon. there are several things about thier religion i disagree with. but that is my opinion, and he is intitled to his. we never bring it up anymore.

 

 

What law of parity? If God is Good then he didn't create it.

 

exactly, evil was a direct result of the creation of good. an inadvertant creation, resulting from the chioce of free will. satan seized the opportunity of evil, thus creating it. law of parity, God is the good, satan is the bad. not sure who the ugly is, maybe old clint can tell us.

[Checkmate]

Avoid me if you want, freeday. I'm never going away.

 

Picking up where I left off with my last post, I want to share something with the class.

 

Reading the various Christian posters we get on these forums, I have finally been able to distill their methodology for convincing unbelievers of the “truth”. They ALL follow a very simple template, and it goes like this:

 

Step One – DEMAND that your audience ASSUME a Christian conclusion is True or Valid. Persuade them to give you the benefit of a doubt and just agree with you that “X” is True™. (e.g. Just believe by “faith” that Jesus Christ is God and that He has risen from the dead. This is our “Truth”, and you MUST assume it is True™ before we begin to discuss its merits. To NOT assume this “truth” is to harden your heart against the Holy Spirit and you won’t be able to see how we arrive at this “truth”. )

 

Step Two – Take your listener on a bewildering maze of apologetic double-speak, combining some bible, with some church doctrine and smothered with a heaping PILE of extra-biblical opinions from the speaker. Always being careful to avoid ANYTHING that could confuse or derail your argument with differing viewpoints (i.e. anything that is “taken out of context”, or from a “false Bible”, “false church” or “false teacher”.).

 

Step Three – With the deftness of a stage magician, loosely tie all the ends together and vaguely trace these “proofs” through the maze of illogic, all the way back to your ASSUMED conclusion, which we’ve already agreed is “True” and “Valid”.

 

Step Four - Watch the Light of Truth dawn in your victim’s lobotomized brain, as he/she thanks you for showing him/her how wrong they’ve been. GLORY!

 

Just for fun, go back and read ANY arguments from Christian posters on these boards. You’ll see that they are following this template to a “T”. (And notice the fact that even though they never succeed in establishing Step One, this doesn’t deter them from moving on to Steps Two and Three! Which angers them, and then they condemn us as "evil", "stubborn" and "wicked".)

 

This Method is retarded and disingenuous. It short-circuits all reason and logic. (The Desire of every Christian. For we "know" that the "wisdom of man" is "sinful/evil", right?)

 

Turn the tables on them, though. Ask any Christian to start with the assumption that “Allah is God and Muhamed is His Prophet” BEFORE you give them proof. They will reject that notion as stupid, and rightly so. Yet Christians want US to begin with, “Jesus is Lord” and “He has risen”, BEFORE they give US proof? That’s bullshit! What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. The door swings both ways.

 

PROOF first, and THEN comes the conclusion, freeday (and Amy Marie and Kat 22 and Pug and any other nitwit passing by). Not the other way around.

[freeday]

Avoid me if you want, freeday. I'm never going away.

 

Picking up where I left off with my last post, I want to share something with the class.

 

Reading the various Christian posters we get on these forums, I have finally been able to distill their methodology for convincing unbelievers of the “truth”. They ALL follow a very simple template, and it goes like this:

 

Step One – DEMAND that your audience ASSUME a Christian conclusion is True or Valid. Persuade them to give you the benefit of a doubt and just agree with you that “X” is True™. (e.g. Just believe by “faith” that Jesus Christ is God and that He has risen from the dead. This is our “Truth”, and you MUST assume it is True™ before we begin to discuss its merits. To NOT assume this “truth” is to harden your heart against the Holy Spirit and you won’t be able to see how we arrive at this “truth”. )

 

Demand that your audience assumes a scientific conclusion that ToE is correct. This is our TRUTH, you just have to belive by faith that a murking puddle could become a complex selfsurviving chain of ammino accids, or that in time, the scientist will once agian change thier theory, or eventually explain it..

 

Step Two – Take your listener on a bewildering maze of apologetic double-speak, combining some bible, with some church doctrine and smothered with a heaping PILE of extra-biblical opinions from the speaker. Always being careful to avoid ANYTHING that could confuse or derail your argument with differing viewpoints (i.e. anything that is “taken out of context”, or from a “false Bible”, “false church” or “false teacher”.).

 

Take your listener on a complex maze of logic, scientific models and theories, double-speak. combine with a few known facts, fill in the "Theories of Gaps", and provide a heaping pile of opinions. always be carfull to avoid any idea of creationism, that would confuse you.

 

Step Three – With the deftness of a stage magician, loosely tie all the ends together and vaguely trace these “proofs” through the maze of illogic, all the way back to your ASSUMED conclusion, which we’ve already agreed is “True” and “Valid”.

 

once the person is convinced you are the smartest person in the word because you can tie together the lose ends with the scientific model, and logic, we can agree that you know the tuth

 

Step Four - Watch the Light of Truth dawn in your victim’s lobotomized brain, as he/she thanks you for showing him/her how wrong they’ve been. GLORY!

 

then you step back, watch the light of truth dawn in your victims FREE THINKING brain, as they thank you for showing them how they are wrong

 

Just for fun, go back and read ANY arguments from Christian posters on these boards. You’ll see that they are following this template to a “T”. (And notice the fact that even though they never succeed in establishing Step One, this doesn’t deter them from moving on to Steps Two and Three! Which angers them, and then they condemn us as "evil", "stubborn" and "wicked".)

 

This Method is retarded and disingenuous. It short-circuits all reason and logic. (The Desire of every Christian. For we "know" that the "wisdom of man" is "sinful/evil", right?)

 

Turn the tables on them, though. Ask any Christian to start with the assumption that “Allah is God and Muhamed is His Prophet” BEFORE you give them proof. They will reject that notion as stupid, and rightly so. Yet Christians want US to begin with, “Jesus is Lord” and “He has risen”, BEFORE they give US proof? That’s bullshit! What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. The door swings both ways.

 

PROOF first, and THEN comes the conclusion, freeday (and Amy Marie and Kat 22 and Pug and any other nitwit passing by). Not the other way around.

 

i am not trying to avoid you. what do you want me to say when you use derogitory terms such as fuck off. as you can see, the same conclusion can be drawn of you. have a great day.

[Antlerman]

sorry took so long to respond, been busy. i think this may have been misconstrued. I wrote this for a friend that was in search of a religion. I thought the author made valid points of why he thought this religion was unique. but then if you don't beleive in the religion, most of the points would be invalid.

................

That last sentence makes ZERO sense. However, it IS a damning testimony of how and why people accept their religious beliefs, while rejecting others.

 

Note: You admit that the ONLY REASON PEOPLE WOULD BE CONVINCED OF FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS FOR YOUR RELIGION WOULD THAT THEY BE PREDISPOSED TO BELIEVE.

 

You said that, "most of the points would be invalid, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE RELIGION".

 

Now, I ask you, if you speak the TRUTH, why must one FIRST have faith in it for it to be VALID? One doesn't.

 

Freeday, you're inadvertently making our case for us. People ONLY believe their brand of faith, BECAUSE they are predisposed to accept it. It has NOTHING to do with "truth" or "Proofs". It's cultural bias, prejudice, social conditioning, peer pressure or what have you.

 

Muslims believe Islam is "true" because THAT is what they were raised to believe. Christians believe in Christ because THAT is what they were raised to believe. None of you religious people were raised in a vacuum. You did not begin with a blank slate, and then began to formulate your ideas FAIRLY to choose your religion. The scales were tipped in your religion's favor, and THAT is the direction you went. I know whereof I speak, because THAT is how I chose Christianity, too.

 

Freeday, if you have "valid" proofs or arguments, it won't matter if I don't believe in your religion. The Truth exists independently of Belief/Faith.

I couldn't have said this better. Freeday, check out this topic from before you were here to underscore what Mr. Grinch just said http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=163762

[freeday]

I couldn't have said this better. Freeday, check out this topic from before you were here to underscore what Mr. Grinch just said http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=163762

 

i feel sure mr. grinch is right, i will not deny this. i was just pissing in his coolaid. for me i don't need proof that there is a God. it makes sense to me. i need proof that there is not a God, before i renounce my religioin. its all in how you look at it. i look at my suroundings and what i have learned and think that there has to something else out there.

 

what should our approach on life be, assume there is nothing untill proven otherwise, or something untill proven otherwise.

 

now i know from learning about you that you believed and then was proven otherwise. what was your defining moment of clarity, that said there is no God. or you could give me the link to your testimony, and i will go read it.

 

i have to get off for the day. got to go tile a bathroom. yeah, what fun.

[Checkmate]

i am not trying to avoid you. what do you want me to say when you use derogitory terms such as fuck off. as you can see, the same conclusion can be drawn of you. have a great day.

NOW you're just being a whiney little bitch, complaining about my "harsh language", instead of dealing with Truth.

 

SHOW ME ONCE IN MY LAST TWO POSTS where I said "fuck off". Yes, I HAVE been harsh to you BEFORE. BUT in my LAST TWO POSTS I have gone OUT OF MY WAY to be nice to you. And now you wrongly accuse me, AND attempt to mock my position by claiming that "my side" uses the same disingenuous methods as YOU?

 

Okay. NOW FUCK OFF!!! You disingenuous fuck! I hereby withdraw my attempt to treat you nicely, since you insist on believing I'm evil. Fuck you. If Antlerman, Scotter and the rest want to treat you with civility, they can. But I won't. Since you seem incapable of actually READING the posts before your braindead eyes!

 

You say "you feel sure that Mr. Grinch is right", but that you're "just pissing in my Kool-Aid®"?

 

FUCK. YOU. I'm wasting my time and my words crafting GENTLE and THOUGHTFUL replies for you, and THIS is the thanks I get. Callous disregard and false accusations? Fuck you, freeday. You are every bit the fucking toad that everyone calls you. Suck my green, furry testicles, you wank!

[white_raven23]

Step One – DEMAND that your audience ASSUME a Christian conclusion is True or Valid. Persuade them to give you the benefit of a doubt and just agree with you that “X” is True™. (e.g. Just believe by “faith” that Jesus Christ is God and that He has risen from the dead. This is our “Truth”, and you MUST assume it is True™ before we begin to discuss its merits. To NOT assume this “truth” is to harden your heart against the Holy Spirit and you won’t be able to see how we arrive at this “truth”. )

Demand that your audience assumes a scientific conclusion that ToE is correct. This is our TRUTH, you just have to belive by faith that a murking puddle could become a complex selfsurviving chain of ammino accids, or that in time, the scientist will once agian change thier theory, or eventually explain it..

 

Freeday, go back and look at my previous post in this thread. Because see, I look at this and I see Mr. Grinch discussing apples (christianity). He's specifically talking about a type of fruit (religion).

 

And I see you comparing lamb chops (Theory of Evolution) to his apples. Why are you comparing meat (science) and fruit (religion) as though they are equal but different?

 

This isn't even a comparison of apples (christianity) and oranges (islam). It is a totally illogical comparison you are making.

 

Do you even know what a theory is? It's not an educated guess (that would be called a hypothesis). It IS an educated guess that has evidence of proof.

 

You realize that gravity is only a theory?

 

Get an education of what scientific method even IS before coming in here. And don't try to pretend you DO know....you just proved by comparing science to religion that you do NOT.

[NotBlinded]

 

>snip<

 

in short, as stated by the law of parity, if God created goodness, it would allow any free will creature to chose the opposite, therefore evil was made as a direct result of the creation of goodness. since evil as a mere concept is powerless, thus it became personified when the free will creature satan CHOOSE to defy God and exist independently of God's objectives.

You are so right, but yet, horribly wrong, IMO.

 

If a person chooses to bad things, does that mean that the ability to do good is gone? Just because one chooses to defy laws, that doesn't mean goodness goes away. You just have to choose it. One cannot ever be apart from the essence that is them. They are just fooling themselves by believing things that are not true (like being separate from God). This belief alone causes the perceived sense of separation. You have heard the saying, "You are what you eat" haven't you? Well, you are also what you believe. I am speaking metaphysically here so, of course, if you believe you are a cow (or eat one), you still won't be no matter how much you believe it to be so. Kind of like believing that there is a physical satan vs a metaphysical one.

 

One can look or they can ignore...but it's still there.

 

Of course, one can choose to exist independently of God's objectives (working against the natural order), but they cannot exist independently of God (life itself). It's a natural process. If I plant a garden of flowers in the middle of the desert and choose to ignore that they need water, will they prosper? This is going against God's laws. And, you won't be damned for breaking them by an authoritative god but you will suffer the consequences...like a dead flower garden.

 

Taking what you said, I would have to say that you understand that there are certain people that are rewarded for following God's laws (I agree...the beautiful flower garden) and there are those that are damned for not doing so (I also agree...the dead flower garden), but this is not something that an outside force exerts on you because you are part of it.

 

God's laws, or the air you breathe and the warmth of the sun, doesn't just apply to certain people. Remember, it rains on the just and the un-just. The un-just are the ones that believe they are separate from everybody else and inflict harm on the ones that believe differently. They are the ones that believe that they are different from others...the elite...the chosen. Ironic isn't it?

[mmccaskill]

All holy books are interesting and beautiful in their own way.

 

Interesting and beautiful......but completely wrong since they don't acknowledge the baby Jebus as the savior.

 

1 simplicity and clarity.

 

The bible is very simply written. "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." this was written around 700 years before the "Iliad" yet it is easily understood today.

 

It is clear with its messages. A verse by verse comparison with the Vedas will convince the reader of how sharp a contrast there is beween the two books.

 

I agree with what others have said in that it is so clear that there are ~30k sects/denominations with slightly different understandings. Plus you've got the Vatican saying that Genesis isn't even supposed to be taken literally anymore. So maybe God didn't really create any of this since it is just a metaphor.

 

The bible is unique in its clarity.

 

2 confident voice

 

another characteristic of the bible is the obvious confidence with which its writers spoke and wrote. In contrast writers of other holy books often express personal insecurity by interjecting such qualifiers as "i swear this is true" or "I am positive this is right. " Jesus on the other hand is described as teaching "as one who had authority, and not as thier teachers of the law" (mat 7:29) In the Koran we see hundreds of expressions of insecurity such as "By allah, i swear this is true."

 

So what? You're operating on the assumption that what is in the gospels is accurate dialog of what Jebus allegedly said. Since there is no way to validate it, you're essentially saying "Jesus said this, I swear by Jesus he did." Basically you're using Jesus to prove Jesus. Gotta love circular logic.

 

3 brevity

 

The bible is simple and to the point, especially in the OT genesis account of creation and in the NT style of writing. Of the 1200 days of Jesus's ministry, only about 34 total days are accounted for in the bible. But yet his message is strongly conveyed. this unusaul economy of words is not typical of other religious books. Just the sheer size of the Vedas proves the point and in the Koran, we see numerous examples of unnecessary detail.

 

Unnecessary detail? It begs the question as to why the entire life of the alleged savior of the world isn't included in the babble. At least the Koran was allegedly written as Muhammed spoke. The gospels weren't written during Jesus' time. They are not eyewitness accounts. The Koran has more validity than the babble in that regard.

 

4 fulfilled prophecy

 

Writing history in advance or phophesying with absolute accuracy is something only God can do. Jesus' ministry was preceded by several hundred prophecies, which served to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was the true son of God. Some may argue that Jesus set out to fulfill persanal prophecies. While that is possible in some instances, there is a significant number of predictions over which he had no control.

 

Many attempts have been made to prove these prophecies true. No one has succeeded. If Jesus was proven to be the savior beyond a reasonable doubt we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

5 honesty

 

There is no whitewashing in the bible. Several blimishes and failures of many of the great OT heroes are listed such as Moses and David. Such honesty is proof of the bibles inspiration. If the bible had been solely the product of human effort, these sordid accounts would no doubt be excluded. When assembling the accounts of Mohammed, the compilers chose to include only the best and the wisest of his syaings, and to exclude everything else.

 

Ok how many gospels weren't included into the NT? And you talk about Koran compilers excluding things.

 

6 Early teachings

 

Moses had unseen wisdom in the writings relating to the fields of hygiene, diet, and quarantine. is it a coincidence that 3200 years ago, a man who knew nothing about bacteria, infection or hygiene instilled practices that is still followed today. These are listed in Numbers and Leviticus. I will elaborate if requested on this subject. otherwise it is to long to get into.

 

Or maybe other civilizations learnt about these things and later on when that knowledge travelled to Israel and that knowledge was attributed to the so-called Moses. Other than the OT there is no proof that Moses contained this wisdom. You believe to be so but that doesn't make it true.

 

7 shipbuilding my personal favorite.

 

Even in our modern day of marine engineering and oceanographic technology, the basic size ratio of all ships considered to produce maximum seaworthiness is 30x5x3. In Genesis we read a 3200 year old narrative of God given instructions to a man who was building a boat that had to be the epitome of seaworthiness. the dimensions of the boat were 300 x 50 x 30 cubits.

 

Irrelevant. Until such a boat is found and proven to be that mentioned in Genesis, your argument is null and void. Futhermore claiming xianity to be the Truth™ because of a fucking boat is pretty fucking funny.

 

8 historica significance

 

Archaeologist and historians recognize that the bible furnishes tremendous insights into the history of the period in which it was written. Even those records in the Bible thought to be in error (such as the existence of the hittite nation) have been shown by archaeologists to be true. It is not surprising that the official publication of Harvard University Archaeological Studes Department is called The Biblical Archaeologist. In its very interesting monthly reports, it testifies again and again to the accuracy of biblical accounts.

 

I doubt anyone here denies that the bible has some real historical facts contained. But that doesn't mean the magical, fantasical, supernatural, miraculous claims mentioned are true. This weak argument you're using can be said of other religions. Big fucking deal.

 

9 THE AUTHOR

 

Finally, perhaps the most important reason to choose the bible as the Word of God has to do with its author. When we examine the other religions in the world, we find that all of the responsibility for establishing a relationship with God falls upon the seeker-humanity must reach up to God. There god does not help at all in these religious systems. It is up to each individual to reach the goal, wether it is nervana or brahma or whatever it might be. Notice the contrast in the bible when the angel Gabriel told mary her son would be called Immanuel which means "God with us."

 

Author? The fucking book is anonymously written. And until evidence surfaces to prove who wrote what this is irrelevent. Futhermore xians can't agree on just who is responsible as author. Some sects/denominations claim it was transcribed by man but inspired by god. Others claim it was written by god. Get your fucking story straight before preaching it to non-believers.

 

side note. these were very brief explanations and there are about 5 more points i did not include due to length. this article is the summation of an entire chapter found in the book "The Source." He states that his readings include the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Tripitaka, Avesta, Tao Te Ching, Angas, Upangas, bab, Bahaullah, and even the Book of Mormon.

 

Oh so instead of actually making an argument explaining why you believe in magic you're just going to copy-and-paste. Nice. This reflects on your character and how I perceive you.

[Young Mother Atheist]

 

What law of parity? If God is Good then he didn't create it.

 

exactly, evil was a direct result of the creation of good. an inadvertant creation, resulting from the chioce of free will. satan seized the opportunity of evil, thus creating it. law of parity, God is the good, satan is the bad. not sure who the ugly is, maybe old clint can tell us.

 

Freeday, if this is true, this implies there is something out of God's control. Also, it isn't true Biblically because the Bible clearly states that Jesus created hell and sent the angels there.

(there is another thread around here that talks about it...anyone know which one? I can't remember)

 

Don't get hung up in doctrine. You start getting pretty far away from what the Bible actually says.

[NotBlinded]

I couldn't have said this better. Freeday, check out this topic from before you were here to underscore what Mr. Grinch just said http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=163762

 

i feel sure mr. grinch is right, i will not deny this. i was just pissing in his coolaid. for me i don't need proof that there is a God. it makes sense to me. i need proof that there is not a God, before i renounce my religioin. its all in how you look at it. i look at my suroundings and what i have learned and think that there has to something else out there.

 

what should our approach on life be, assume there is nothing untill proven otherwise, or something untill proven otherwise.

 

>snip<

 

Now, I know that you don't live by that thought process. Surely you don't just assume that any kind of monster or fantastic creature exists until it is proven that they don't? Do you need proof that they don't exist or do you hold off stating it as truth until it is shown that they do exist?

 

When you speak of needing proof that God doesn't exist, are you speaking of God in general or the Christian God? Because if you are speaking of the Christian God, then have you been shown proof that the other Gods don't exist? I would like to see that proof if you will.

 

If you are speaking of God in general, then believing that this God exists must be accompanied by the disclaimer, "but I don't know for sure. There is no proof, but I believe there is something." You cannot claim that it is the truth and expect others to take you seriously. I too feel there is something or some source for life, but I don't know.

[Misterspock1]

2 confident voice

 

another characteristic of the bible is the obvious confidence with which its writers spoke and wrote. In contrast writers of other holy books often express personal insecurity by interjecting such qualifiers as "i swear this is true" or "I am positive this is right. " Jesus on the other hand is described as teaching "as one who had authority, and not as thier teachers of the law" (mat 7:29) In the Koran we see hundreds of expressions of insecurity such as "By allah, i swear this is true."

 

He didn't interject it throughout the story, but he did prelude his teachings several times by saying "Truly, truly, I say unto you" (or however you translate it). How is this not different than any other writer saying "I swear this to be true"?

 

Besides, I am sure Joe down at the mental hospital has full confidence when he tells you he can talk with cockroaches. Maybe Jesus should have been committed...

[Ouroboros]

exactly, evil was a direct result of the creation of good.

Which means that good and evil didn't exist before it was created. So was God good before he created good?

[white_raven23]

exactly, evil was a direct result of the creation of good. an inadvertant creation, resulting from the chioce of free will. satan seized the opportunity of evil, thus creating it. law of parity, God is the good, satan is the bad. not sure who the ugly is, maybe old clint can tell us.

 

Freeday, this is NOT supported by the Bible. You are either making it up, or someone else made it up, and you decided it was the truth.

 

Who created the Tree of Knowledge? God right?

Genesis 2:9

And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

See? God CREATED evil. Evil had to be created in order for your skewed vision of free will to work in the first place. Evil existed in the fruit of the tree.....it wasn't unleashed on humanity until someone ate the fruit.

 

Oh wait....you want to argue it was knowledge of good and evil that the tree was about? Fine. Then you have to concede that Adam and Eve were not being punished when they were sent from the Garden.

 

The Fall of Man was not a fall.

 

It was a precaution. God didn't want them eating from the other tree. Remember the Tree of Life? NOWHERE in Genesis does it say that God had intended man to eat from the tree of life....but man botched that chance by eating from the other tree first.....the bible doesn't SAY that!!! Not even in Revelations 22 does it say that had been the original intent!

Although I've heard people say it.

 

And God brings evil upon people according to Joshua 23:15

But just as every good promise of the LORD your God has come true, so the LORD will bring on you all the evil he has threatened, until he has destroyed you from this good land he has given you.

 

So....if god is all good, HOW can he bring evil onto people? And don't try saying he petitioned Satan to do it for him, the bible lists in DETAIL (multiple places in Samuel I) when god gets man or sends an evil spirit to do his dirty work for him....and this verse in Joshua says NOTHING about a hot call to satan, spirit, or John Edwards to persecute people.

[Vigile]

exactly, evil was a direct result of the creation of good.

Which means that good and evil didn't exist before it was created. So was God good before he created good?

 

Uh... well... uh... er...

 

Com'on FD, what say you? This is one of the many impossible corners you guys have painted yourselves into with your untenable doctrines. That's ok though 'cause if you just close your eyes and believe real real hard this problem will go away like the rest of them.

[Open_Minded]

And Freeday ... You claim to worship ONE GOD....

 

So... and I've brought this up before ... how can anything, anyone, any part of the universe ... exist beyond - outside -apart from this ONENESS you call God?

 

In short - why are you even asking "which God to believe in"? There can only be ONE eternal, infinite, ONENESS...

Can I get an answer anytime soon, Feeday.

i agree with you "there can be only one" as stated in highlander. as far as living apart from God, i answered that in another post. you must have missed it. i will try and find it later.

 

in short, as stated by the law of parity, if God created goodness, it would allow any free will creature to chose the opposite, therefore evil was made as a direct result of the creation of goodness. since evil as a mere concept is powerless, thus it became personified when the free will creature satan CHOOSE to defy God and exist independently of God's objectives.

 

Yes... we have discussed this before. You gave me an answer about free will. I responded to that answer as follows... you never answered:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=190343

Most major world religions connect Ultimate reality with Love, Wisdom, Infinite, Eternal, in all through all and beyond all. Christianity uses some of the following language.

 

God is Love

God is omnipresent

God is omnipotent

We live and move and have our being in Christ

Christ is the Alpha and the Omega (beginning and end)

Christ is eternal - infinite WORD made flesh - before Abraham was I AM

 

OK... back to my statement:

 

 

but if it is truly infinite than - nothing, no-one, is in reality separated from God

To me this statement has nothing to do with free will. The beginning and the end exist. Define it how you want but you live within it, you breathe within it, you move within it, you think within it. It can't be helped, separating yourself from the Alpha and Omega is not physically possible.

 

Now... if by extension... the Alpha and Omega is connected with infinite WISDOM, LOVE, etc... then we can no more be separated from infinite LOVE, WISDOM, etc... than we can physically exist beyond the beginning and the end.

 

Now - there are many who do NOT associate LOVE and WISDOM, etc... with ultimate reality. (Many on this board would gladly be willing to debate me on that one statement alone).

 

And you know what, Freeday. I can't prove my beliefs right and theirs wrong. But, in the end - that isn't what my point is about. My point is simple....

 

If YOU believe God is infinite, Love, Wisdom, infinite Mercy, infinite Grace ..... If YOU believe that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega.... then how can anyone - or anything - exist outside of that. It's either infinite, it's either the Alpha and the Omega - or it's not.

 

This has nothing to do with "free will". It has nothing to do with whether we believe we are a part of the Alpha and Omega - the infinite LOVE. It has nothing to do with whether we can prove it - or not.

 

If GOD is all these things - then there can be no existence outside of GOD - NONE.

 

Whether we acknowledge it, accept it, believe it - is moot.

 

By definition if there is something that is infinite ONENESS than there can be NOTHING else, NOTHING - free no ability to change this. I have the free will to deny that I live in this universe - but that changes nothing. Factually I still exist within this universe - whether I deny it - or not - is moot.

 

Please address this ... how can there be ANYTHING outside of a God which is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, infinite, ONE?

 

So please answer the question without falling back on "free will".

 

EDIT

__________

By definition if there is something that is infinite ONENESS than there can be NOTHING else, NOTHING - free will has no ability to change this. I have the free will to deny that I live in this universe - but that changes nothing. Factually I still exist within this universe - whether I deny it - or not - is moot.

 

Please address this ... how can there be ANYTHING outside of a God which is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, infinite, ONE?

 

So please answer the question without falling back on "free will".

[Ouroboros]

Also realize as much as good/evil would be a creation by God, and if Free Will is a creation by God. Then does God have Free Will? Did he create himself? Maybe then God is Ouroboros.

 

 

--edit--

 

If so, here's an interesting though (for me )

 

I'm born in the sign of Leo, which can relate to Lioin of Judah, Jesus.

 

I'm born in the year of the Viper, the snake is the symbol for Ouroboros.

 

My name, Hans comes from Johannes, which means Blessed by God.

 

Heck, maybe I am Antichrist?

 

I just haven't figured out how to get my name to turn out to 666 yet...

[Antlerman]

I couldn't have said this better. Freeday, check out this topic from before you were here to underscore what Mr. Grinch just said http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=163762

 

i feel sure mr. grinch is right, i will not deny this. i was just pissing in his coolaid. for me i don't need proof that there is a God. it makes sense to me.

Well great then. Why all the apologetics then? You don't need proof to have faith. Who care's if the Bible isn't a book of literal science and history. Your faith isn't based on it, right? Then why do you deny Evolution? On scientific grounds??? This sounds like double-speak.

 

i need proof that there is not a God, before i renounce my religioin.

Why? If you don't need proof there is a God to believe, what is there to disprove?? This is a contradictory statement. Which is it, you believe because of proof and you would need to have that proof discredited to loose faith; or you don't believe based on proofs and so there is no proofs that can be disproved - you simply choose to believe?

 

What you're saying is self-contradictory. Please clarify is you can.

 

its all in how you look at it. i look at my suroundings and what i have learned and think that there has to something else out there.

So you are basing this on knowledge of science, or on an emotional sense that there must be meaning to life?

 

what should our approach on life be, assume there is nothing untill proven otherwise, or something untill proven otherwise.

It's up to you. That's what faith is. There is no tangible evidence of the supernatural in the natural world, so believing in spite of there being no evidence is the very definition of faith. That is a personal choice. I find it's easier to not get tangled in the various tangle of theologies surrounding speculative thoughts about possible supernatural explanations - from Zeus to Jehovah, from Jesus to Krishna. But that's just what works for me. I focus in the natural, you in the supernatural. It's what works for you.

 

Again, you in one breath said you don't need evidence to believe. In which case then this discussion of evidences for the one true faith are completely meaningless. But then in the other you seem to be arguing from evidence and are setting yourself and other non-scientists in direct opposition to the world of real scientists, denying they know how to do science because it disagrees with your beliefs, which are founded on non-scientific evidences of logic and emotion.

 

You are in quite a conundrum here.

 

now i know from learning about you that you believed and then was proven otherwise. what was your defining moment of clarity, that said there is no God. or you could give me the link to your testimony, and i will go read it.

There was no defining moment. It is best described as a gradual realization and acceptance. See here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=136900 It's in 3 parts in the same thread.

[Asimov]

exactly, evil was a direct result of the creation of good. an inadvertant creation, resulting from the chioce of free will. satan seized the opportunity of evil, thus creating it. law of parity, God is the good, satan is the bad. not sure who the ugly is, maybe old clint can tell us.

 

No you're being disingenuous:

 

"in short, as stated by the law of parity, if God created goodness, it would allow any free will creature to chose the opposite, therefore evil was made as a direct result of the creation of goodness. since evil as a mere concept is powerless, thus it became personified when the free will creature satan CHOOSE to defy God and exist independently of God's objectives."

 

If God is good, then he couldn't have created goodness.

 

It has nothing to do with free will.

[RHEMtron]

First off, thank you once again for responding. I commend you for being able to keep up with everyone. We tend to all bombard Christians on this site, and they never are able to respond to many of our posts... or at least intentionally avoid our posts...

how can this be taken out of context, according to the NIV it says "but you, bethlehem Ephrathah. though you are small among the clans of Judah. Out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel."

The others are right in saying you cannot say "According to the NIV" because that gives it's own interpretation. How do you know which version to believe? But if you want to go that way, i am using the NASB, which is considered to be a more literal translation. Besides... all I meant was it's taken out of context as in it's not a prophecy.

 

verse 1 sets up the scene for the current times.

Exactly what i mean by misinterpretation. I agree that verse 1 sets up the scene for current times, but it is not a set-up for matthew and lukes time. It is a set-up for the current time period of Micah. Verse 1 says:

 

Micah 5:1

Now muster yourselves in troops, daughter of troops; They have laid siege against us; with a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek.

 

He was talking to soldiers and their families. If one reads the entire Verses, Chapter, and Book of Micah, one will find that they are talking about the Assyrians, whom they fight with.

 

verse 2 looks forward to the birth of the one who will be the ruler in israel.

Yes, it is a prophecy of birth, but not of Jesus, but a military leader who will defeat the Assyrians. It is evident when one reads verse 5:6.

 

They will sheperd the land of Assyria with the sword, The land of Nimrod at it's entrances; And he will deliver us from the Assyrian when he attacks our land and when he tramples our territory.

 

This is all within the same chapter. Obviously we know Jesus did not do such a thing. This is what i mean by reading the chapter in which a verse is found, and reading the book in which a chapter is found to get the complete context of what a verse of prophecy means.

 

i already pointed out that, although you were referencing matthew, matthew obviously changed the words of the Masoteric Text.

 

Matthew alters Ephrathah with land of Judah. Micah also has you are too little among the clans of Judah whereas Matthew's quote of it has you are not least among the princes of Judah. Finally, Matthew replaced ruler with shepard. That is dishonest and misleading.

 

since there were two bethlehems in the holy land, Micah specifies bethlehem ephrathah, six miles south of jerusalem.

The 2 Bethlehems i am familiar with is Bethlehem, Judah and Bethlehem, Gallilee. Bethlehem Ephrathah again refers to a clan. It is not to be mistaken with Bethlehem, Eprath which was mentioned in Gen. 35:16, 19, 48:7, and Ruth 4:11.

 

Again look at verse 5:2 where Micah states But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah (a clan of Bethlehem), TOO LITTLE TO BE AMONG THE CLANS of Judah, There he is saying that their numbers are too low to be among the clans of Judah.

 

Who is the clan? They were the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).

 

this verse is intednded as a contrast to verse 1. although israel's contemporary situation migt be discouraging, yet all would be changed when the Messiah came.

Again, read what i said, and the actual Book of Micah. It was intended for their contemporary situation.

 

 

exactly, evil was a direct result of the creation of good. an inadvertant creation, resulting from the chioce of free will. satan seized the opportunity of evil, thus creating it. law of parity, God is the good, satan is the bad. not sure who the ugly is, maybe old clint can tell us.

The problem i see with that is with that belief, you are no longer a monothiest. You become a dualist. So now youre implying Satan is the complete opposite of God. That means he is on par with God since he's able to create evil. Essentially you believe in 2 Gods: God of Good... and a God of Evil.

 

But then again, the logic behind your statement is, for the lack of a better term, sucky. Refer to what Asimov said.

[Lycorth]

FUCK. YOU. I'm wasting my time and my words crafting GENTLE and THOUGHTFUL replies for you, and THIS is the thanks I get. Callous disregard and false accusations? Fuck you, freeday. You are every bit the fucking toad that everyone calls you. Suck my green, furry testicles, you wank!

 

 

Well-put, Mista Grinch. Traditional Xian style - post a bunch of bullshit, receive well-written and thought-provoking replies, and then get all haughty and bitchy, then return to step one.