Five Questions That Christians Can't Answer

[Grandpa Harley]

One thing I've never had a straight answer for... why I should regard their take on the Bible as correct? Their logic is always circular '...it's true because it tells me it's true so I believe it since it can't lie to me because it's true because it tells me it's...'

[Jun]

One thing I've never had a straight answer for... why I should regard their take on the Bible as correct? Their logic is always circular '...it's true because it tells me it's true so I believe it since it can't lie to me because it's true because it tells me it's...'

 

Hey, who are we to knock the bible? It MUST be real because............well............because.......er......it's a BOOK!...............and er............it's written on PAPER.....and it's OLD! And it's the WORD of "God."

[NotBlinded]

One thing I've never had a straight answer for... why I should regard their take on the Bible as correct? Their logic is always circular '...it's true because it tells me it's true so I believe it since it can't lie to me because it's true because it tells me it's...'

Let them persist in their folly...maybe in time they will see the insanity of giving laws that go against human nature. Even Paul saw the insanity of the law and how it lead to circular madness. And they say God doesn't have a sense of humor!

[Kuroikaze]

I just linked to an article about "hell". Has anyone read it? If you had, then you would see my answer is backed up thoroughly.

 

I haven't, but given that I've already studied most ancient and modern Christian views of hell, I don't see much reason to, I asked what YOU thought, and if all you are doing is miming something from an article you read then you don't have much to say.

 

Giving someone a straight answer is not the same thing as convincing them that the answer is correct. lol

No, but you didn't even give enough information for me to make a judgment. You seem intentionally vague on what your thoughts are exactly...maybe its because you aren't even sure yourself.

 

It's funny how when I agreed on question number three's premise, that all you could do is find one thing I said to argue about. Which, if you look at it, was me saying that I'd go by just the odds and nothing else.

 

It was a backhanded agreement in which you built in an unstated and indefensible position that your religion is right anyway because there is more evidence to suggest it is so. I can read between the lines, so don't bother trying to tell me you weren't asserting that.

 

You will not accept any answer, except one that says, ok, I renounce my Christian beliefs. Is that what you want to hear?

 

I could care less if you reject xtian beliefs or not, for your information I accepted the Christian answer for 5 years...all I'm pointing out is that your position is logically indefensible... of course you are free to believe I am wrong about that.

 

Suppose you asked "How did the universe come into being?"

 

And when I say, "God created it." That wouldn't be accepted as answer because, since you don't believe it, the answer I provided cannot be understood by you.

 

That is ridiculous. lol

 

You are right, I wouldn't agree, (though I can understand the answer perfectly) but this isn't about me agreeing or not, this is about whether or not you have any evidence for your claims. You see, its not that don't understand your claims, but that your claims seem to be nothing more than naked assertions, that you seem unable or unwilling to defend.

 

If I told you unicorns were real, you would have no trouble understanding my claim, but I bet you WOULD require some sort of evidence before you believed me.

 

I wouldn't reject "God created it" as an answer because I don't believe it, as my beliefs merely follow what the best evidence suggests, and the best evidence suggests there is no God. That is why I would reject such an answer, and will continue to do so until I see evidence to the contrary.

[Kuroikaze]

Begging_the_question

 

It is not incumbent on the answerer to disprove the question when the question itself remains unproven.

 

You have yet to provide one iota of backing for your questions, and yet you expect me to do just that.

 

Hypocrite.

 

 

I am not being hypocritical, though you are free to believe otherwise.

 

I have not called you names and have been as civil as possible with you, so I would ask that you do the same

[wishful]

Lets take this one step at a time. In all seriousness.

 

I will explain why my answer is full, to the point, and straightforward.

 

For your convenience, here's the question, and my answer.

 

2) People who speak of "hell" associate it with divine punishment, but punishment is usually used as a corrective measure. How do people suffering in an eternal hell learn their lesson? Doesn't that make hell mere torture with absolutely no point to it?

 

2. It is most likely there is no hell, as popularly defined today.

 

First, there are two questions here. I say that only to say that the question requires two answers to fully answer it. It can certainly be inferred from my statement, that those two questions were answered, and I'll tell you why.

 

2a It can be inferred that I don't believe, and I'm not alone in this belief among Christians(I point to the link that I posted to confirm this), that hell is a place of eternal suffering. There is no lesson to be learned.

 

2b Again, it can be inferred from my answer that there is no such torture that is going to happen.

 

If this doesn't clear this up for you, I can't make it any clearer. You may want me to prove, and explain, and provide evidence all day long for my answer, but again, you asked for a straight answer, and you got one.

 

 

I've thrown you an olive branch, how about you tell me which questions that you think I answered in a straightforward manner. I'd be happy to clear up any of the remaining answers one at a time.

 

By the way, I called you a hypocrite because question number 1 was multiple choice, and you would not admit that I answered it in a straightforward manner. I've read and reread your posts, and not once did you acknowledge that.

 

 

I will explain why my answer is full, to the point, and straightforward.

 

For your convenience, here's the question, and my answer.

 

3) There are thousands of different denominations in Christianity, each thinking they have it right. All other religions think that they have it right, as well. How can you be sure that you have it right, when the odds are that you are actually wrong?

 

3. Going strickly by the odds, and foregoing any qualitative analysis, the answer is, you are right concerning the odds.

 

Lets be honest with each other. Your question is saying that the odds are against anyone who has a religious belief, in their belief being the right one. Let me tell you something about God, and how he reveals himself to people, and why it is never a good idea to tell just anyone about the particular way God reveals himself.

 

Lets take an example from the bible. Consider what would have happened if Jesus were to have gone around telling everyone, "I've had an experience with God! I saw Moses, and Elijah and I even talked with them. Then God said to me, ""This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him."

 

 

What proof would Jesus have had of such on event? He would have been ridiculed. And yet those very same people should have known the very God they denied.

 

Romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

Therefore, it stands to reason that any revelation of God, that he gives to someone, should not be passed on to those who refuse to acknowledge that evidence of his existence is readily available. They will not accept what they can plainly see, and they certainly won't accept what they cannot see.

 

I am going to be blunt, I would be a fool to pass on the revelations God has given to me privately, to you. Perhaps now you see why I post about God is real is based around pointing people towards looking at "what has been made".

[Grandpa Harley]

2) Your view may not be unusual, it's certainly not mainstream. So it's effectively heretical in terms of the bulk of Christian doctrine over thus it's an answer but can a clear heresy be 'straight'?

 

3) Bible isn't much of an authority... to cite it invokes circular logic. Same with claiming a subjective experience as an objective proof. During a bout of severe fever as a child, I saw goblins roll up the ceiling of my bedroom... I heard the noise of breaking plaster, felt the cold wind from the attic, I could see the inner structure of the roof and smell the dust of a long closed place. Subjectively it was pretty strong. Objectively it had no existence at all... I even know it's probable root cause. It felt pretty mystical at the time, and it had some long term impact... but only as a window into the workings of my head...

[Kuroikaze]

First, there are two questions here. I say that only to say that the question requires two answers to fully answer it. It can certainly be inferred from my statement, that those two questions were answered, and I'll tell you why.

 

2a It can be inferred that I don't believe, and I'm not alone in this belief among Christians(I point to the link that I posted to confirm this), that hell is a place of eternal suffering. There is no lesson to be learned.

 

2b Again, it can be inferred from my answer that there is no such torture that is going to happen.

 

If this doesn't clear this up for you, I can't make it any clearer. You may want me to prove, and explain, and provide evidence all day long for my answer, but again, you asked for a straight answer, and you got one.

 

Alright, now we are getting somewhere, you are no longer being vauge and expecting everyone to infer half of what you say...this was what I was asking for in the first place when I asked you questions about your answer. In fact I had an idea about where you might be going with this, but I don't like to infer things about Christians beliefs.

 

Of course I don't expect you to provide evidence for this position because there isn't any more evidence for your form of Christianity than fundamentalism. Though I will admit that your brand is far less offensive and harmful to society than Fundamentalism is. I have no problem tolerating your position even if I don't agree with it.

 

 

 

By the way, I called you a hypocrite because question number 1 was multiple choice, and you would not admit that I answered it in a straightforward manner. I've read and reread your posts, and not once did you acknowledge that.

 

I also never asked you any questions about your answer to number one....perhaps you should have inferred that I acknowledged that

 

 

 

Lets be honest with each other. Your question is saying that the odds are against anyone who has a religious belief, in their belief being the right one. Let me tell you something about God, and how he reveals himself to people, and why it is never a good idea to tell just anyone about the particular way God reveals himself.

 

Lets take an example from the bible. Consider what would have happened if Jesus were to have gone around telling everyone, "I've had an experience with God! I saw Moses, and Elijah and I even talked with them. Then God said to me, ""This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him."

 

 

What proof would Jesus have had of such on event? He would have been ridiculed. And yet those very same people should have known the very God they denied.

 

Romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

Therefore, it stands to reason that any revelation of God, that he gives to someone, should not be passed on to those who refuse to acknowledge that evidence of his existence is readily available. They will not accept what they can plainly see, and they certainly won't accept what they cannot see.

 

I am going to be blunt, I would be a fool to pass on the revelations God has given to me privately, to you. Perhaps now you see why I post about God is real is based around pointing people towards looking at "what has been made".

 

Fair enough, but now you are just relegating all evidence of gods existence to the subjective...

 

For the record all the objective evidence points to no god existing, you are free to provide evidence if you feel I am wrong on this, and while I cannot study the subjective evidence you claim to have I can tell you that my subjective evidence also leads me to believe that god does not exist. For instance, I cannot think of a single time that a prayer I prayed was ever answered.

 

You seem to be inferring that there is ample evidence for gods existence and I'm an idiot for not see things as such.

 

As far as your bible quote goes, just because its in the bible doesn't make it true....you know this as well since you deny the doctrine of hell which is clearly taught in the bible as well. You can't just selectively use the bible to make your points and then ignore it when its not convenient and expect me to take you seriously.

 

Did you honestly think that after 5 years of being a Christian I was unfamiliar with Romans 1:20? That verse is just being used by you as a form of mind control to keep people inside the Christian mindset. If anyone doubts God's existence you just point them to that verse and its supposed to clear everything up? Its just a self declaration with no factual support.

 

Furthermore, you deny the existence of hell, but if you read the rest of that chapter the writer makes it clear that he thinks people who deny gods existence should be killed.... did you even read the rest of that passage? Its not very nice.

[wishful]

Please read this carefully.

 

For the record all the objective evidence points to no god existing

 

What is this evidence? There are a lot of atheists who would love to get there hands on it.

 

I assume that there must not be any more confusion for you over the straightforwardness of my answers since you did not ask for me to clarify anything else.

 

Your topic is titled "Five Questions That Christians Can't Answer".

 

I have answered then, and you haven't recanted, that makes you a hypocrite. Recant and I will withdraw my labeling of you as a hypocrite.

 

Fair enough, but now you are just relegating all evidence of gods existence to the subjective...

 

I refer back to the verse from Romans, "...what has been made...", is clearly objective. God does not need to provide any more evidence than that. Therefore, you need not rely on me, and my revelations of God in order to know that God exists.

 

The bible is completely authoritative. If you will take the time to carefully study the link I posted, you would see that the doctrine of hell has largely been misinterpreted by Christians. Kuroikaze, if you are going to assert that I am wrong about my interpretation of hell, and that I "selectively use the bible to make [my] points and then ignore it when its not convenient", then you should show yourself to not be a fool and study this. When you have shown me to be wrong, I will happily admit to being the fool.

 

Allow me to paste a small portion of the article since no one seems to want to read it, especially those that tell me I'm wrong.

 

 

http://www.thercg.org/books/ttah.html

 

Perhaps the most familiar and often-quoted verse in the Bible is understood by almost no one. John 3:16 states, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Millions routinely quote this verse, while ignoring an essential phrase within it.

 

Reread it! Those who receive salvation are promised that they “should not perish” but “have eternal life!” If hell is a place of eternal torture, then the people suffering this torment must also have eternal life. But the verse says, “should not perish.” It does not say, “Should not suffer eternal life in torment.” How does the word perish relate to the popular teaching about hell and hell fire? Why did God inspire John to use the word perish if this is not what He meant?

 

By the way, Romans chapter one, ends with this prophecy. The funny thing is, it is plain to see that this is what is happening in our times. This is one of the ways God makes himself known, and yet, as easily as this can seen and understood, people won't accept it. God explains the reasons why this is, and it is not because of stupidity as you would say.

 

 

Romans 1:28-32

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

Isn't it funny how the bible talks of death many many times, and yet people want to spiritualize it. And here I am taking the bible, literally at it's word, and Kuroikaze wants to say what she/he says about me. It's laughable, and hypocritical

[Kuroikaze]

What is this evidence? There are a lot of atheists who would love to get there hands on it.

 

I assume that there must not be any more confusion for you over the straightforwardness of my answers since you did not ask for me to clarify anything else.

 

Your topic is titled "Five Questions That Christians Can't Answer".

 

I have answered then, and you haven't recanted, that makes you a hypocrite. Recant and I will withdraw my labeling of you as a hypocrite.

 

You wouldn't understand the evidence if I gave it to you Seriously though, you don't have any problem believing that Zeus doesn't exist do you? There isn't any evidence in favor of your god...I could list proofs for pages about why god doesn't exist, but, unlike you, I will give you the benefit of believing you aren't a total idiot and that you have read a lot of these....if not then do the research yourself because I'm not your teacher. Why not try reading some books that aren't the bible. Perhaps Betrand Russles "Why I'm not a Christian"

 

But to give you an example of this proof, how about the very fact that the god you are arguing for is a logical contradiction.

 

All the atheist out there are already aware of this evidence, thats why they are atheists

 

Bye the way this is not MY topic, Someone else posted those questions, so get it straight... I merely responded with some questions because I felt your answers were incomplete and required that people infer most of your answer. Which is a poor way to write when you don't know your audience.

 

Since you persist in your name calling I will assume that you will not be offended when I call you a moron.

 

 

I refer back to the verse from Romans, "...what has been made...", is clearly objective. God does not need to provide any more evidence than that. Therefore, you need not rely on me, and my revelations of God in order to know that God exists.

 

The bible is completely authoritative. If you will take the time to carefully study the link I posted, you would see that the doctrine of hell has largely been misinterpreted by Christians. Kuroikaze, if you are going to assert that I am wrong about my interpretation of hell, and that I "selectively use the bible to make [my] points and then ignore it when its not convenient", then you should show yourself to not be a fool and study this. When you have shown me to be wrong, I will happily admit to being the fool.

 

Allow me to paste a small portion of the article since no one seems to want to read it, especially those that tell me I'm wrong.

 

 

http://www.thercg.org/books/ttah.html

 

Perhaps the most familiar and often-quoted verse in the Bible is understood by almost no one. John 3:16 states, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.†Millions routinely quote this verse, while ignoring an essential phrase within it.

 

Reread it! Those who receive salvation are promised that they “should not perish†but “have eternal life!†If hell is a place of eternal torture, then the people suffering this torment must also have eternal life. But the verse says, “should not perish.†It does not say, “Should not suffer eternal life in torment.†How does the word perish relate to the popular teaching about hell and hell fire? Why did God inspire John to use the word perish if this is not what He meant?

 

By the way, Romans chapter one, ends with this prophecy. The funny thing is, it is plain to see that this is what is happening in our times. This is one of the ways God makes himself known, and yet, as easily as this can seen and understood, people won't accept it. God explains the reasons why this is, and it is not because of stupidity as you would say.

 

Ahh quote mining, the Christian apologists favorite friend...well two can play at that game...explain the parable of the rich and poor men...the rich man doesn't simply cease to exist he is being punished in fiery torment. What about revelation when it says that the unbelievers will be thrown into a lake of fire with the devil and his angels? Do I really need to go on?

 

By the way, your argument that Romans chapter one is a prophecy is just plain stupid. A prophecy of what? That people will die? Does it really require a prophetic gift to see that one coming? Give me a break. If you think that passes for prophecy then I've got some land to sell you in Florida.

 

Besides if you read on into chapter two of Romans you see the writer actually meant the entire chapter as an attack against self righteous Christians who were too judgmental of other peoples faults. Seems the passage has more to say to you than me.

 

Isn't it funny how the bible talks of death many many times, and yet people want to spiritualize it. And here I am taking the bible, literally at it's word, and Kuroikaze wants to say what she/he says about me. It's laughable, and hypocritical

 

It still seems to me that you are selectively taking parts of the bible literally and other parts figuratively with no explanation as to why...even if I'm wrong it doesn't mean I'm hypocritical.... To quote the princess bride "I do not think that word means what you think it means"

[Jun]

The bible is completely authoritative.

 

Oh, really? And how about the Koran, or the Kojiki, or the RigVeda, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Nihon Shoki, or the Upanishads, or the Torah, or the..............

 

What makes YOUR book any more authoritative than all the others which are also the words of "God?"

 

Gods, holy books, angels, dragons, men in the sky, talking burning bushes, unicorns, ................ it's all fiction.

[Grandpa Harley]

The bible is completely authoritative.

 

How did I miss high comedy... The bible is 'completely authorative'? This is proved how?

 

Scuse me, but I think I nearly piddled meself laughing...

[Jun]

The bible is completely authoritative.

 

How did I miss high comedy... The bible is 'completely authorative'? This is proved how?

 

Scuse me, but I think I nearly piddled meself laughing...

 

I just want know. Who proof read the bible? Which version is the authoritative one; the King James version, New life version, International version, The Jehovah's Witness bible, The American bible, The Australian bible,...............Did "God" approve it before it was sent off to the printer?

[Grandpa Harley]

King James Version... only one that Satan hasn't screwed with. I know it's true because Jack Chick told me... and Jack tells it like it is!

[Ouroboros]

The bible is completely authoritative.

 

How did I miss high comedy... The bible is 'completely authorative'? This is proved how?

 

Scuse me, but I think I nearly piddled meself laughing...

Of course it is completely authoritative. It's one of the heaviest religious books and will hurt the most when you whack someone with it. Christians don't need to strap bombs to them to terrorize people, they only need to get a good swing with the hard cover version. All those pounds of paper will surely come down on you with full force and convince you how authoritative it is.

[Ouroboros]

King James Version... only one that Satan hasn't screwed with. I know it's true because Jack Chick told me... and Jack tells it like it is!

Which also makes Jack Chick authoritative. And he is because his tracts can be easily stuffed down your throat and make you choke. Are you convinced of the truth of this religion yet Gramps?

[Grandpa Harley]

If you want a lethal weapon KJV 1611 timber and iron bound door bible, with Gustav Dore engravings and an appendix of Maps of the Holy Land and Paul's travels...

 

Jack Chick is just the IED of Christianity...

[Kuroikaze]

....and none of us have even touched the huge logical fallacy that is the cornerstone of wishful's argument. The argument that god must exist because nature's existence necessitates a god.

 

wishful is a good name....lots of wishful thinking going on.

[Jun]

A religion based on "God" is a religion based solely on speculation.

 

A religion based on speculation leads to superstition.

 

A religion based on the existence of "God" is not based on truth.

 

The very substance of nature itself cannot allow for the existence of "God."

[Taphophilia]

Nearly any religious doctrine can be "proven" by quoting scriptures in the proper sequence, claiming they are all in context with each other. There are hundreds of different Christian factions all using scripture to "prove" they have the only truth. Using Scripture to prove Scripture is factual and true is called "begging the question". Proof must come from extra-biblical, non biased, proven documentation.

 

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the original manuscripts are the authoritative inerrent word of god. Wouldn't it make sense that the original manuscripts, instead of translations from copies of copies of copies of them are, in fact, god's word? Herein lies the problem, no one has ever seen the bible in it's inerrent form. By the time the last book of the bible was written, the earlier ones were already worn out and copied. The copies we have are, in most cases, centuries removed from the originals. We have, at this present time, no way of determining which words of the bible are accurate or errant, since we have no way to compare or verify them to the originals.

 

The entire contents of the Bible was chosen by men. The writings which were excluded were excluded by men. Be assured, these men all had an agenda which was to propagate and preserve what THEY believed. Some scholars chose to include books contained in the "Apocrypha" and these books appear in the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible. Other men chose to omit the Apocrypha, so it is not included in the King James version.

 

The concept of the Trinity of the Godhead was a political issue and was voted upon by religious factions in the early days of Christianity. Whether you accept the Trinity as a part of your beliefs or not, the Trinity is generally incorporated into Chrisitan doctrine because men voted upon the concept and the pro-Trinity faction won. Divine inspiration of what to include and preclude in the Bible then, often depended upon the whims and agenda of a man or a few men who made the decision.

[Grandpa Harley]

Ever noticed the 'correct' sequence is seldom the 'chronological' one? It's called 'string of pearls' exegesis...

[TheKreativeKat]

What is this evidence? There are a lot of atheists who would love to get there hands on it.

 

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. Not only do you have to prove that the God of Judeo-Christianity exists, but that he's the only way to avoid eternal damnation. Considering the fact that you can prove neither, you shouldn't be so surprised that I'm not completely sold over to your side.

 

The bible is completely authoritative.

 

And here is a common form of circular logic. To quote Christian mentality, "You don't have to take my word for it. If you want to believe in God, simply read the Bible, which was written under by divine inspiration, God literally speaking to the writers." Okay, so in order to believe in God all I have to do is read a book he supposedly wrote?

 

You speak about death being literal in the Bible. In Romans it says the wages of sin is death, but the give of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus. We all know that eternal life means heaven. Death, in that passage of scripture, is a spiritual death - an eternal separation from God and the riches of heaven. In other words, the wages of sin is not a literal death (I mean, I guess in some cases it could be, like drug abuse or drunk driving), but a spiritual one. How can you claim otherwise?

 

Wishful, you speak with doubt in regard to the existence of hell which puts you as a minority among your brethren. Honestly, I haven't spoken with too many Christians who reject the concept of hell. Although I have Biblical accounts that talk of how hell has not yet been created, that souls will be in limbo until Jesus returns and the battle of Armageddon has been faught. The Bible talks of a barren wasteland that burns eternally with the smell of sulfur. Many open-minded Bible scholars say that the Bible is referring to a place called Gehenna, which was an actual place located just outside of Jerusalem where the people burned their trash. The Jewish people believe that Gehenna is where souls go for purification. A purgatory, of sorts, but not a place of weeping and the gnashing of teeth. It's interesting how many religions use fire as a symbolic means of purification.

[MatthewBurke]

1) Which one better describes an all-loving God: a.) One that gives human beings one chance only to get it right and if you don't condemns you to an eternal hell, or b.) One that allows you multiple chances to get it right so that you can spend eternity in the best place possible?

The answer is neither, but rather a Just God. If were a judge in an American court, and a man guilty of murder came to me humbly bringing evidence of all the people he wanted to murder but did not, and evidence of the good he had done in his life including saving a man from a burning car, donating to the poor, and a plethora of other "good deeds". Would it be fair and just of me to weigh his good against his bad and let him walk free? Of course not. The same is true with our God, but on a far grander scale. If we break His rules, we must be judged accordingly.

[MatthewBurke]

2) People who speak of "hell" associate it with divine punishment, but punishment is usually used as a corrective measure. How do people suffering in an eternal hell learn their lesson? Doesn't that make hell mere torture with absolutely no point to it?

It's not a matter of punishment, we only view it as that because....well, a world of fire and brimstone sounds pretty punishing. The fact is that we all serve something. Some choose to serve God, some serve themselves, some serve a hobby that they dearly enjoy, and sadly some even knowingly serve Lucifer. If we are not with Him we are against Him, and we have no place in the place He has created for us. So more directly, if you do not serve Him, the true and living God, then ultimately you serve Lucifer the temporary ruler of this earth. And as a result, those who choose this path do have a place in the place he (Lucifer) has created...and that's well...less that appealing...

[MatthewBurke]

3) There are thousands of different denominations in Christianity, each thinking they have it right. All other religions think that they have it right, as well. How can you be sure that you have it right, when the odds are that you are actually wrong?

If it were an odds game this would be exactly correct, but it's not. If anyone is truly searching thier heart they will come to that conclusion themselves. I did.

And since some will claim that my response to this is vague I suppose I'll elaborate. Put these other religions to the test, check to see what truths and unthruths they hold. Check what historical accuracy they have. Check what scientific accuracy they have. But in the end it comes down to if this person searching is truly searching thier heart, opposed to looking for ways to scoff the existence of God or doing it just to do it...when they have already told themselves, "I'll do this just to prove there is no God."

Jeremiah 29:12-13 (King James Version)

12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.

13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.