Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[mwc]

 

I say sin cannot be mastered because no matter how well even a believers walk with God is, the believer is still a sinner.   We can sin less, but we are still sinners.   

     I know you keep saying that but that simply goes counter to what god himself explicitly states.  One of you are wrong.  Why should I accept your answer over what god himself says?

 

 

Seths line is interesting.  I think I may have touched on the subject here before, but I'm not sure.  In (Jude 14) there is a reference to this line of Seth.  It says there that Enoch is the 7th from Adam.   But, if you count even in just the line of Seth, you will see that Enoch is not the 7th from Adam.   And if you include Cain and his descendants, which you should, because he is from Adam also, then the number grows much larger.   Why would that be.  My answer is God is only counting His people.  Thus Cains line is left out completely.   So Abel was a child of God.  But Cain was not.  So it wouldn't be until another child of God was born and children to him that men began calling on the name of the Lord.  

     So Eve was mistaken in saying that Cain was from god?  She mis-attributed this since she is silent on Abel?  We're sure throwing a lot of shade Eve's way.  How many things is she going to have to know or not know in order for this all to actually work in the end?  It's starting to add up.

 

 

I believe the sacrifice was well understood by Adam and Eve when they saw the deaths of innocent animals to cover them.  And they in turn would certainly pass this on to Cain and Able.   I do not use the Midrash.

     You seem to use a form of Midrash.  You're putting your own spin on the stories.  Like right here you're telling me that Adam and Eve actually saw god kill innocent animals and therefor learned the sacrificial system as a result.  But the bible states nothing of the sort.  It says " ²¹ And the Lord God made garments of skins for the manand for his wife, and clothed them." That's it.  No killing.  God can create things whole cloth.  That is how the story begins after all.

 

     But if we assume god did sacrifice animals for their clothes I want you to think about that.  God built an alter to himself.  That's a requirement.  Then he made a knife.  He made all the implements.  He made the proper clothing for himself (he's a stickler).  He then killed the animals in the proper fashion.  Burned them according to his own rules.  Then he would have cut them up.  He would have had to tan the hides.  Then sewn them.  The whole nine.  God sat around making garments for these two after performing a sacrifice to himself.  All perfectly so you know it took time and was done right.  This whole idea is patently absurd coming from that one verse.  Unless you like a little midrash.

 

 

How much Eve knew about Satan at this time I don't know.  I was simply identifying the serpent as Satan, because Satan was the force behind it.  And the condemnation from God to the serpent was directed at both the serpent and Satan.    Prior to the fall man was just as supernatural as the angels were.  As to exactly what knowledge unfallen Adam and Eve had of Satan, I don't know.   We are not told. 

     Now where does it say Satan was the force behind the serpent?  I've read through the Genesis story I don't know how many times and it's just not there.  Anywhere.  That seems to be something, like the addition of god teaching people how to sacrifice, that you're adding in or getting from somewhere else.  I need to know how Eve could know because this would directly impact what she needs to believe and why.  As it stands Eve is dealing with a serpent.  Anyone who would have read this account would only see Eve dealing with a serpent.  They would need other information, like a non-canonical text or midrash, something not Genesis you see, in order to fill in the blank of what that serpent could be if not actually a serpent.  Then they'd need to accept this outside text as valid, or canonical, and then it would be also acceptable that the serpent is also, lets say, Satan.  Otherwise it might not be acceptable to say that.

 

     Do you see what I am saying?  You're telling me Satan is the force behind the serpent.  I'm going to read this as a "possession" in that Satan possessed the serpent then god cursed the serpent, and the others, but let Satan off without a peep even though he was the "force" behind it.  The actual cause of the trouble is ignored and unmentioned in the story.  Not unless we're considering Satan to simply be the actual idea of an "adversary" but these were generally considered angelic actors working for god then this would mean god stirred the pot using the serpent.  That doesn't work either.  The text makes no mention of any Satan.  I think the book of Enoch is where this idea gains traction (I'd have to look since I haven't read it in some time) and those books of Adam and Eve that were roundabout the same time.

 

          mwc

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

No, it is not that there is no evidence that would 'satisfy' me.  No evidence is necessary to satisfy me.   Big difference.

 

Stranger

 

Actually... Yes, Stranger.

 

No evidence would satisfy you - because any that challenges your faith is simply denied by you.

 

Therefore, no evidence that contradicts your faith can satisfy you. 

 

My point stands.  Courtesy of your denial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

So far Stranger has offered zero reason for anyone to buy what he's selling. Esp. people who know the product well.

 

"I'm not selling, I'm just here to ..."

 

If you were going to go there, forget it. You've offered zero reason for any of us to buy what you're selling.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

So far Stranger has offered zero reason for anyone to buy what he's selling. Esp. people who know the product well.

 

"I'm not selling, I'm just here to ..."

 

If you were going to go there, forget it. You've offered zero reason for any of us to buy what you're selling.

 

 

 

Reason had nothing to do with the Stranger becoming a Christian and reason has no chance of causing him to recant, F.

 

We've established this.

 

That might explain why he has offered zero reason.

 

Because he needed none, has none and won't use any.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Not contesting that! I'm doubtful that Stranger will get many customers, though.

[bornagainathiest]

Since you've re-opened the dialog between us Stranger, please answer these questions, which I put to you recently.  Thanks..

.

.

.

As I said, science has nothing but 'theories', concerning the origin of the universe.   They don't know.  I don't need anyone else to say it.  

 

Stranger

 

So what is happening when a theory is used to make a prediction and that prediction is confirmed by evidence?

 

Does this not indicate that the theory is correct in what it says about physical reality?

.

.

.

When you say 'more than we can observe' I assume you still mean physical, and not spiritual.

 

I may not ignore what science says about physical reality, but that doesn't mean I need to agree with their conclusions either.  

 

Stranger

 

That's correct.

 

Science concludes (by inference and not by direct observation) that the temperature of the molten rock 50 miles under our feet is over 1000 0 C.

 

Do you accept this conclusion?

 

[Astreja]

 

Salvation is being brought back into a right relationship with God.    Sin separated man from God.  God has to deal with the sin question in order to save man.  If man is not saved then he is separated from God forever.  Eternal death.   So man is being saved from eternal death.

 

Your god is simply not up to my standards and I am not interested in having a relationship with it.

 

I also accept the prospect of death and, as I have said before, am not interested in living forever.  I am quite content to think that one day I'll be gone but the atoms of my body will be renting lodgings in some other material form -- or more likely, many material forms.

 

We are stardust.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Well, as I mentioned above, no.  Because God's nature will not change.   It is either be saved through the process He has created, because that places the individual in a 'righteous' condition, or be separated from God.   

 

Stranger

Thank you for acknowledging that god is not omnipotent.  Now, why would you worship a god who is not omnipotent?

[Guest]

 

 

The Christian faith is not a faith in man, but a faith in God.  So, I would say the parallel you give doesn't fit.   For sure, the faith you describe would be empty because it would not be true.  

I believe [but do not know that] the Christians faith and truth are related.  Because that faith is in Jesus Christ and [that faith leads to the belief, but not the knowledge that] Christ is the Truth.   (Jn. 14:6) [according to a book written by sinful, imperfect men and interpreted by believers in thousands of different ways].

 

I agree that just because I believe doesn't make something so.  [Amen]

You can believe all you want that you know the truth, but that doesn't make it so.

[sdelsolray]

Note how this poster, Stranger, is slowly and surely demonstrating his narcissism, his deep delusion of owning absolute knowledge and truth, his cowardice to consider or address evidence and his refusal and inability to use rational thinking.

 

Gnostic theists are entertaining...until they're not.

[ag_NO_stic]

Based on the definition of "theory," creationism is the step before that at "hypothesis." With no evidence to back it up.

 

I will continue to say this to you even if it never registers. Every single person arguing against you here, @Stranger, USED TO BELIEVE what you do. You can throw the term "ex-christian" out of the equation and use whatever term you like, nothing is changed. We know exactly how deluded you are because we used to be that deluded. We gave the same answers you are giving. We clung to "faith" and the "one day you'll burn in hell and it will be too late" and the "you just don't have the same understanding I do" mental acrobatics the same way you are now. Your current answers are no longer acceptable. This is not the same thing as some born/raised atheist who watches a video of the arsenic water and is suddenly convinced he needs god. We are well-versed in the bible and in what you are going to say from your apologetic websites and resources. 

 

It clicked with us. I would never parent the way God does. Oh, it must be that my ways are not my Almighty's ways. Why does hell even exist? In all seriousness, how does eternal hell make sense for a finite crime, especially when we are told to forgive others on earth for wrongs against us. Oh, it must be that my ways are not my Almighty's ways...why am I so scared of a god that claims to love me so much? A healthy fear of your creator is normal and even encouraged. Don't you want your children to fear you? Who are you to question God? Maybe, but...I wouldn't send my child to hell. I don't want them to choose me out of fear. God is supposed to know my innermost thoughts and fears. He knows my motivation. He gave me this brain! Why won't he answer?.....You are not god, stop questioning his perfect will. Why does his will include death, slaughter, hell, rape, and torture? I can see these things are bad. I wouldn't wish hell on my worst enemy. Why does God? You are not god, do not question his ways. But......Why?

 

I am imploring you, Stranger, to consider how seriously the history and text of the bible is flawed. I was taught that the bible was inerrant, I believed the genesis story, I believed Noah's flood. I believed in the virgin Mary and the resurrection. I believed I was a totally depraved sinner because of Adam. I believed I needed a savior, I worshiped God for every situation and prayed for the fruit of the spirit to be evident in my life. I believed that God heard my prayers, that he loved and listened to me, that he had a plan for me, and was a comfort to me. I refused to listen to anyone who questioned the bible or mentioned the errors, I wrote them off as out of context or misunderstanding the point of the scripture. Little did I know that I was the one who had the misunderstanding and took passages out of context. Historians, Christian historians, have lost their faith and belief in Yahweh kicking and screaming and fighting not to because they'd been hidden from the truth of scripture their entire life.

 

There are errors, there are inconsistencies. Two years ago I would have sworn this was false. How was there evening and morning if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day? Why was Jesus born in Nazareth? Depends on the gospel you read. Who was at the tomb of resurrected Jesus? Did they go inside the tomb? Angels or no? Was the body anointed? Depends on the gospel. If you research the history of the OT, the number of flood stories before the bible was ever in existence that sound like the bible version is staggering, the number of creation stories before the bible are staggering, the number of various myths that have similarities with Jesus, staggering. I deconverted kicking and screaming too. I didn't want to lose the God I'd been raised to believe in. I was terrified of hell, terrified of God's wrath, terrified that I had not been created with a purpose, no one was looking out for me. It takes courage to face these fears and research for yourself.

 

Open your eyes, I beg you. What would you do with your life if you didn't fear hell?

 

[Stranger]

 

     I know you keep saying that but that simply goes counter to what god himself explicitly states.  One of you are wrong.  Why should I accept your answer over what god himself says?

 

     So Eve was mistaken in saying that Cain was from god?  She mis-attributed this since she is silent on Abel?  We're sure throwing a lot of shade Eve's way.  How many things is she going to have to know or not know in order for this all to actually work in the end?  It's starting to add up.

 

     You seem to use a form of Midrash.  You're putting your own spin on the stories.  Like right here you're telling me that Adam and Eve actually saw god kill innocent animals and therefor learned the sacrificial system as a result.  But the bible states nothing of the sort.  It says " ²¹ And the Lord God made garments of skins for the manand for his wife, and clothed them." That's it.  No killing.  God can create things whole cloth.  That is how the story begins after all.

 

     But if we assume god did sacrifice animals for their clothes I want you to think about that.  God built an alter to himself.  That's a requirement.  Then he made a knife.  He made all the implements.  He made the proper clothing for himself (he's a stickler).  He then killed the animals in the proper fashion.  Burned them according to his own rules.  Then he would have cut them up.  He would have had to tan the hides.  Then sewn them.  The whole nine.  God sat around making garments for these two after performing a sacrifice to himself.  All perfectly so you know it took time and was done right.  This whole idea is patently absurd coming from that one verse.  Unless you like a little midrash.

 

     Now where does it say Satan was the force behind the serpent?  I've read through the Genesis story I don't know how many times and it's just not there.  Anywhere.  That seems to be something, like the addition of god teaching people how to sacrifice, that you're adding in or getting from somewhere else.  I need to know how Eve could know because this would directly impact what she needs to believe and why.  As it stands Eve is dealing with a serpent.  Anyone who would have read this account would only see Eve dealing with a serpent.  They would need other information, like a non-canonical text or midrash, something not Genesis you see, in order to fill in the blank of what that serpent could be if not actually a serpent.  Then they'd need to accept this outside text as valid, or canonical, and then it would be also acceptable that the serpent is also, lets say, Satan.  Otherwise it might not be acceptable to say that.

 

     Do you see what I am saying?  You're telling me Satan is the force behind the serpent.  I'm going to read this as a "possession" in that Satan possessed the serpent then god cursed the serpent, and the others, but let Satan off without a peep even though he was the "force" behind it.  The actual cause of the trouble is ignored and unmentioned in the story.  Not unless we're considering Satan to simply be the actual idea of an "adversary" but these were generally considered angelic actors working for god then this would mean god stirred the pot using the serpent.  That doesn't work either.  The text makes no mention of any Satan.  I think the book of Enoch is where this idea gains traction (I'd have to look since I haven't read it in some time) and those books of Adam and Eve that were roundabout the same time.

 

          mwc

 

 

You shouldn't accept my answer over what God has said.    But I believe what I am saying is what God has said. 

 

I believe Eve was mistaken in thinking Cain was the seed line spoken of by God when He said in (3:15) that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpents head.  What she didn't know was that another seed line would be born also.  The seed of the serpent.   I don't throw anything Eve's way then should be thrown.  I actually throw more Adams way.

 

Well, God made coats of skins.  Skins come from animals.  When you skin an animal, you first kill it.  When you kill it and skin it there is blood.  Blood is required as a covering for man.  The life of the flesh is in the blood.  (Lev. 17:11)  A life for a life.

 

As I said, I don't read the Midrash.

 

Whether Even knew she was dealing with a serpent, or Satan behind the serpent,  is really immaterial.  She knew the commandment God had given not to eat.  If all you had was the book of Genesis then yes, that is all we would know.  But there are sixty five more books.  

 

Actually much of the condemnation and judgement went to Satan.   Most especially that the seed of the woman would destroy the seed of the serpent.   But, the seed of the serpent would wound the seed of the woman.   That speaks to Jesus Christ.  He was wounded.  But not destroyed.  Satan was destroyed.  

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Actually... Yes, Stranger.

 

No evidence would satisfy you - because any that challenges your faith is simply denied by you.

 

Therefore, no evidence that contradicts your faith can satisfy you. 

 

My point stands.  Courtesy of your denial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't remember the exact context of my statement.  But, yes, as far as any evidence science or others finds that supposedly disproves God or Christ I would deny.   Because science is limited in its knowledge.  It is always learning and changing. 

 

Let's say science and scientists were completely unbiased, concerning God and the Bible.  Which is not true, but let's just assume it.  I believe,  If given enough time and study of the universe, science would eventually come to the conclusions of the Scriptures.    But, neither are scientists unbiased, and neither will there be enough time given.

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

Since you've re-opened the dialog between us Stranger, please answer these questions, which I put to you recently.  Thanks..

.

.

.

As I said, science has nothing but 'theories', concerning the origin of the universe.   They don't know.  I don't need anyone else to say it.  

 

Stranger

 

So what is happening when a theory is used to make a prediction and that prediction is confirmed by evidence?

 

Does this not indicate that the theory is correct in what it says about physical reality?

.

.

.

When you say 'more than we can observe' I assume you still mean physical, and not spiritual.

 

I may not ignore what science says about physical reality, but that doesn't mean I need to agree with their conclusions either.  

 

Stranger

 

That's correct.

 

Science concludes (by inference and not by direct observation) that the temperature of the molten rock 50 miles under our feet is over 1000 0 C.

 

Do you accept this conclusion?

 

 

I suppose it could or could not be.   Science told us Pluto was a planet.  As a child if I was asked that in grade school, if Pluto was a planet, I would be right.  Now, I would be wrong.   

 

I accept that science is basing it's conclusions on the best knowledge it has.  I certainly don't have any other knowledge concerning the temperature of the earth 50 miles under our feet.   So, I would accept it knowing there is a certain amount of leeway and know that it could change.  

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Your god is simply not up to my standards and I am not interested in having a relationship with it.

 

I also accept the prospect of death and, as I have said before, am not interested in living forever.  I am quite content to think that one day I'll be gone but the atoms of my body will be renting lodgings in some other material form -- or more likely, many material forms.

 

We are stardust.

 

OK.  I understand.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

Thank you for acknowledging that god is not omnipotent.  Now, why would you worship a god who is not omnipotent?

 

God is omnipotent.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

You can believe all you want that you know the truth, but that doesn't make it so.

 

I really wish you wouldn't inject your words into my post.  I believe it is a form of deception.  It may be allowed here, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't.   I wouldn't do it to your posts or any others.  

 

Stranger 

[Stranger]

 

Based on the definition of "theory," creationism is the step before that at "hypothesis." With no evidence to back it up.

 

I will continue to say this to you even if it never registers. Every single person arguing against you here, @Stranger, USED TO BELIEVE what you do. You can throw the term "ex-christian" out of the equation and use whatever term you like, nothing is changed. We know exactly how deluded you are because we used to be that deluded. We gave the same answers you are giving. We clung to "faith" and the "one day you'll burn in hell and it will be too late" and the "you just don't have the same understanding I do" mental acrobatics the same way you are now. Your current answers are no longer acceptable. This is not the same thing as some born/raised atheist who watches a video of the arsenic water and is suddenly convinced he needs god. We are well-versed in the bible and in what you are going to say from your apologetic websites and resources. 

 

It clicked with us. I would never parent the way God does. Oh, it must be that my ways are not my Almighty's ways. Why does hell even exist? In all seriousness, how does eternal hell make sense for a finite crime, especially when we are told to forgive others on earth for wrongs against us. Oh, it must be that my ways are not my Almighty's ways...why am I so scared of a god that claims to love me so much? A healthy fear of your creator is normal and even encouraged. Don't you want your children to fear you? Who are you to question God? Maybe, but...I wouldn't send my child to hell. I don't want them to choose me out of fear. God is supposed to know my innermost thoughts and fears. He knows my motivation. He gave me this brain! Why won't he answer?.....You are not god, stop questioning his perfect will. Why does his will include death, slaughter, hell, rape, and torture? I can see these things are bad. I wouldn't wish hell on my worst enemy. Why does God? You are not god, do not question his ways. But......Why?

 

I am imploring you, Stranger, to consider how seriously the history and text of the bible is flawed. I was taught that the bible was inerrant, I believed the genesis story, I believed Noah's flood. I believed in the virgin Mary and the resurrection. I believed I was a totally depraved sinner because of Adam. I believed I needed a savior, I worshiped God for every situation and prayed for the fruit of the spirit to be evident in my life. I believed that God heard my prayers, that he loved and listened to me, that he had a plan for me, and was a comfort to me. I refused to listen to anyone who questioned the bible or mentioned the errors, I wrote them off as out of context or misunderstanding the point of the scripture. Little did I know that I was the one who had the misunderstanding and took passages out of context. Historians, Christian historians, have lost their faith and belief in Yahweh kicking and screaming and fighting not to because they'd been hidden from the truth of scripture their entire life.

 

There are errors, there are inconsistencies. Two years ago I would have sworn this was false. How was there evening and morning if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day? Why was Jesus born in Nazareth? Depends on the gospel you read. Who was at there at the tomb of resurrected Jesus? Did they go inside the tomb? Angels or no? Was the body annointed? Depends on the gospel. If you research the history of the OT, the number of flood stories before the bible was ever in existence that sound like the bible version is staggering, the number of creation stories before the bible are staggering, the number of various myths that have similarities with Jesus, staggering. I deconverted kicking and screaming too. I didn't want to lose the God I'd been raised to believe in. I was terrified of hell, terrified of God's wrath, terrified that I had not been created with a purpose, no one was looking out for me. It takes courage to face these fears and research for yourself.

 

Open your eyes, I beg you. What would you do with your life if you didn't fear hell?

 

 

I am being honest in my statements.  I want you to know, I don't remember a time that I ever did not believe in God.  Ever.   You say it was because of the way I was raised.  But, I know people who are raised in the Church, yet do not believe it.   It is not because you are taught something that you believe what you believe.   If you really believe that, then someone taught you to believer otherwise.  

 

Whether or not hell is there, makes no matter to me.   I want to be where God is.  I don't want to be where He is not.

 

Stranger

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

I am being honest in my statements.  I want you to know, I don't remember a time that I ever did not believe in God.  Ever.   You say it was because of the way I was raised.  But, I know people who are raised in the Church, yet do not believe it.   It is not because you are taught something that you believe what you believe.   If you really believe that, then someone taught you to believer otherwise.  

 

Whether or not hell is there, makes no matter to me.   I want to be where God is.  I don't want to be where He is not.

 

Stranger

 

@Stranger, this has nothing to do with you being honest. I absolutely 100% believe you are being honest with us and that you really, truly believe what you're telling us. I really do. I know this because I was the same way. I wanted to be where God was, I was "after his own heart" as taught by the bible. Up until 8 months ago, I had never "not believed in god" either. I think you want us to believe you and even "come back to Christ." But you did not acknowledge any of what I said. I said the way you were raised has a lot do with it, but what you believe is ultimately up to you. @Stranger, there is soooo much evidence that you believe what you believe now because of what you are taught growing up. That's why so many religions can be traced to certain regions of the world, why you parent like your parents, and many hold similar political beliefs as your parents. What you think about yourself is taught to you, when you are taught to "tell the truth, value honesty, sit up straight, don't pick your nose in public," etc translates into what you believe about the world. Muslims "feel Allah and want to be where Allah is," pantheists "feel the universe god's divine energy," it's so psychological. You yourself gave the example that so many who were raised that way ultimately reject Christianity, this is because they look critically at what they believe with honest eyes. We are asked, as atheists and agnostics, "What if you are wrong?" 

 

I ask you, sincerely, what if you are wrong? I'm not saying, "Admit, right here and now, that you are wrong." I want you to consider the alternative to your current beliefs for the sake of a hypothetical. I know you don't think you are, but what if you are ultimately wrong? What if the bible is myth, god is not real, creation is explained by science and your "experiences with god" are explained psychologically? (I will refrain from sarcastically making mention that there is already evidence for this.) What if you live your entire life and it's a lie? What if your life, the only one you have, passes you by and there is no afterlife? You will have missed it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

God is omnipotent.

 

Stranger

god cannot be omnipotent if, by your own admission, he cannot change his nature.  god cannot be omniscient if, by your own admission, he cannot change the plan of salvation and deal with sin by some other means.  god is not omnipotent, by your own admission; and saying it ain't so don't mean it ain't so.  You can claim that your god is omnipotent; but you've already demonstrated, through your own description of him, that he is not.  Have a good day.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I don't remember the exact context of my statement.  But, yes, as far as any evidence science or others finds that supposedly disproves God or Christ I would deny.   Because science is limited in its knowledge.  It is always learning and changing. 

 

Let's say science and scientists were completely unbiased, concerning God and the Bible.  Which is not true, but let's just assume it.  I believe,  If given enough time and study of the universe, science would eventually come to the conclusions of the Scriptures.    But, neither are scientists unbiased, and neither will there be enough time given.

 

Stranger

 

 

 

Thank you for confirming that you selectively deny (cherry-pick) the findings of science, Stranger.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I suppose it could or could not be.   Science told us Pluto was a planet.  As a child if I was asked that in grade school, if Pluto was a planet, I would be right.  Now, I would be wrong.   

 

I accept that science is basing it's conclusions on the best knowledge it has.  I certainly don't have any other knowledge concerning the temperature of the earth 50 miles under our feet.   So, I would accept it knowing there is a certain amount of leeway and know that it could change.  

 

Stranger

 

 

 

But doesn't the holy spirit guide you into all truth regarding what science you should deny and what you should accept?

[midniterider]

 

 

God is omnipotent.

 

Stranger

 

You've given us your fear-based message. Now, why don't you let the Omnipotent speak for himself? Can he?

[midniterider]

 

 

   It is not because you are taught something that you believe what you believe. 

 

Stranger

 

So your family didn't worship Jesus? Your family didn't go to church? Your family taught you nothing of Christianity?

[midniterider]

Hey, Stranger, do you accept computer science? Electron theory? Do you believe computers are real? haha