Is there really a god?

[d'Arthez]

God told them if they ate that fruit they would surely die.

Yes - but that means that they would know the difference between right and wrong, life and death - yet they could not. If they lack the knowledge to make such a distinction, how can you expect Adam and Eve to have made that distinction?

 

Therefore, they had knowledge, given by God, that eating that fruit was wrong.

No. They only knew (if that is possible, without knowledge) that God told them something - but they can logically never have understood why it was wrong. Because if they could, they already would have the knowledge - which was exactly acquired by eating from the tree of Knowledge.

 

So, knowledge of sin, before eating the fruit, was revealed by God. God did not list any other sins other than eating the fruit at that time.

Absolutely not true. If I tell a 2 year old kid that killing a turtle is bad, does that mean that this child will know why it is bad? No. If you give a reason to the child does that mean a child without knowledge, understands the given reason? No.

 

That was already acknowledged and explained. I told you the census in Chronicals was incomplete, because the account in Chronicals said so, so Samual's count is more reliable.

Funny that you use the term reliable for what you hold to be infallible. The thing is either they fought or they did not - and one account is mistaken.

 

As for my name, I still have but one name. And strange as it may sound I do not choose to be Levi one moment, and Matthew the next, because it simply suits me better. And still, my name would be either Levi or Matthew, not both.

 

You cant even bring up one contradiction up in the Bible to substantiate your point.

Because you allow yourself the liberty to add in 24,356,346,436,344,432,245 assumptions, as infallible facts - assumptions which are sometimes mistaken. I only need to make one assumption to explain the idea that Newton discovered the theory of relativity. Now, if you grant me the liberty to make 9 assumptions, I can explain everything.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Yes - but that means that they would know the difference between right and wrong, life and death - yet they could not. If they lack the knowledge to make such a distinction, how can you expect Adam and Eve to have made that distinction?

 

 

No. They only knew (if that is possible, without knowledge) that God told them something - but they can logically never have understood why it was wrong. Because if they could, they already would have the knowledge - which was exactly acquired by eating from the tree of Knowledge.

 

 

Absolutely not true. If I tell a 2 year old kid that killing a turtle is bad, does that mean that this child will know why it is bad? No. If you give a reason to the child does that mean a child without knowledge, understands the given reason? No.

 

God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The essential meaning of sin is transgressing against God, disobeying God. They went against the word of God to eat the fruit, as God told them not to eat the fruit, or else they would die.

 

In terms of a theological issue, it is quite irrelevant what was going on in their heads, the point is they disobeyed God, and corrupted the human race as a result of that disobedience.

 

Funny that you use the term reliable for what you hold to be infallible. The thing is either they fought or they did not - and one account is mistaken.

 

I've read both accounts again. The term relibable is meant for 'complete' census. Both census are otherwise equally reliable - depending on whether or not you think it is fair that a couple of tribes may have been excluded from one of them. The best term I should have used was 'complete' instead of 'reliable'.

 

Both accounts mention the 'drawing of swords', or people who are in the army and ready to fight.

 

 

As for my name, I still have but one name. And strange as it may sound I do not choose to be Levi one moment, and Matthew the next, because it simply suits me better. And still, my name would be either Levi or Matthew, not both.

 

I doubt your online name here is the same as your offline. People also refer to your middle and last names. I do not just have one name.

 

Anyway, the point, is there is no contradiction on names.

 

Because you allow yourself the liberty to add in 24,356,346,436,344,432,245 assumptions, as infallible facts - assumptions which are sometimes mistaken. I only need to make one assumption to explain the idea that Newton discovered the theory of relativity. Now, if you grant me the liberty to make 9 assumptions, I can explain everything.

 

Not really, you have failed to show any contradictions. Your examples are very weak and inconclusive, and do not show contradictions on spiritual doctrinal points. The Bible is coherent, and it explains itself pretty well.

[Admiral Thrawn]

I don't believe in God. And if I were to believe in god, the last religion I would choose would be Christianity.

 

That's no problem, because the Bible allows for foolish people:

 

Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

and it says in vs. 2

 

"The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any did that did understand, and seek God.

vs.3) They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

 

 

No, I didn't miss the whole point of the Bible, I REJECT the whole point of the Bible. Big difference. If by "quickened by the Holy Spirit" you mean I have to turn my brain off and accept the goofiest religious premise EVER, then I agree with you.

 

It is foolish to reject something you dont know anything about.

 

Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

Proverbs 15:2 "The tongue of the wise useth knowledge alright: but the mouth of fools poureth foolishness".

1 Corinthians 2:6-7 "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory".

 

I have no choice but to reason with my rational mind. I have no other tool.

 

Then reason...

 

Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as the snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

 

No offense, but that is crap. There are countless interpretations of the Bible, many of which spawned major denominations in Christianity. To say one has the "correct" interpretation and one does not is a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Personally, I don't care what the "real" or "true" interpretation of the Bible is.

 

1 Corinthians 2:10-11 "But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God"

 

The Bible clearly states that you need illumination (revelation of Divine truths contained in Scripture) with the help of the Holy Spirit, only then you can understand the correct interpretation.

 

 

Why would a god inspire a book that required decoding? That is just goofy, as is the idea that fruit can impart knowledge or make you immortal, that sacrificing pdgeons cures leprosy, and that people rise from the dead. What century is this?

 

Again, that is not a problem, because God's ways are not your ways:

 

Isaiah 54:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."

Isaiah 54:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

 

What I'm suprised about, is for every remark you have made, there is a verse in the Bible to address it - it's like you can carry on a conversation with the Bible.

 

It looks like God would like to talk with you. Why dont you try talking to Him?

[Admiral Thrawn]

I'll only point out some of the main contradictions from the gospels....

 

1. The geneologies in matthew and luke differ. They both say jesus is fathered by joseph, but go back one more generation and the 2 gospels differ. Matthew says joseph's father was jacob, whereas luke says it was heli. Keep going back to david, and the path is completely different.

 

I'm looking for the geneology in Luke, I cant seem to find it. Would you mind refencing the chapters and verse that deals with geneology. It seems Matthew dealt with geneology in detail. Feel free to expand on this.

 

2. Luke says jesus was born in the year of the census in 6AD, matthew says he was born while herod was alived, and herod died in 4BC.

 

 

Luke or Matthew does not mention specific dates and years. Jesus was born when Herod was alive, because he ordered the slaughter of Jews that were less than 2 years of age, so that Jesus' too would have been killed.

 

The exact timing of this census is not known, but it would appear to be an extra-biblical component you are bringing up by assuming that census is taken after Herod died. It would then have to be concluded that this census was taken when Herod was alive. Our discussion here is best served if you just keep this to the Bible. Good-point.

 

 

3. The gospels say that jesus was killed by crucifixion, whereas paul says he was hung on a gibbet and peter says he was hung on a tree.

 

I never heard about the 'gibbet' would you mind referencing chapter and verse. Jesus hung on a tree when He was cruricified. Nails went into His hands and into His feet and he hung suspended on a tree. The term cross was never actually mentioned anywhere. But either case, it is referring to the same thing and is not contradictory.

 

4. Matthew and mark have jesus saying as his final words "my god why have you forsaken me?", luke has him saying something different and john has him saying something different from everyone else "i am thirsty, it is finished".

 

There are many ways of saying the exact same thing, that does not mean there is a contradiction. If I say, XYZ goes to Zator, and DYV also goes to Zator, then these to assertions are not contradictory, if they both go to Zator.

 

The fact of the matter is Jesus died on that cross and said something before He died, that indicated He was really suffering, and at the point of death. There is no contradiction of that fundamental truth anywhere.

 

Now, if you came to me and said, well, one account said Jesus did not die, or that He went to jail instead of going to a cross, then that would be a real contradiction.

 

There are many more contradictions in the bible admiral.

 

Give me your best shot.

[Bogun]

Give me your best shot.

I thought what i wrote made it clear that the bible is full of contradictions.

 

I'm looking for the geneology in Luke, I cant seem to find it. Would you mind refencing the chapters and verse that deals with geneology. It seems Matthew dealt with geneology in detail. Feel free to expand on this.

I'm not happy about hunting down bloody verses from the bible. Luckily I found a bible hidden away (I thought I'd chucked them all out ).

 

Luke 3 v 23-38.

 

Luke or Matthew does not mention specific dates and years. Jesus was born when Herod was alive, because he ordered the slaughter of Jews that were less than 2 years of age, so that Jesus' too would have been killed.

 

The exact timing of this census is not known, but it would appear to be an extra-biblical component you are bringing up by assuming that census is taken after Herod died. It would then have to be concluded that this census was taken when Herod was alive. Our discussion here is best served if you just keep this to the Bible. Good-point

I disagree and so would historians bud. The exact date of the census of quirinius is known (6CE), i did not make an assumption. The romans were very meticulous in the records they kept.

 

I never heard about the 'gibbet' would you mind referencing chapter and verse.

Galatians 3 v 13, Acts 10 v 39 and 5 v 30 (depends on the translation you have, some say tree, some say gibbet)

 

There are many ways of saying the exact same thing, that does not mean there is a contradiction. If I say, XYZ goes to Zator, and DYV also goes to Zator, then these to assertions are not contradictory, if they both go to Zator.

 

The fact of the matter is Jesus died on that cross and said something before He died, that indicated He was really suffering, and at the point of death. There is no contradiction of that fundamental truth anywhere.

The point is that these guys were supposed to be Jesus's close followers and yet they can't agree on what the last words he spoke were!

 

 

Here's one more contradiction....

In matthew, Judas Iscariot hangs himself, (Matt 27 v 5), in acts of the apostles he dies after an accidental fall and his guts fall out (excessively graphic dont you think?) (acts 1 v 18).

[Admiral Thrawn]

I thought what i wrote made it clear that the bible is full of contradictions.

 

 

I'm not happy about hunting down bloody verses from the bible. Luckily I found a bible hidden away (I thought I'd chucked them all out ).

 

Luke 3 v 23-38.

 

Nah, the same person had two different names. Like Matthew and Levi were different names for the same person.

 

I disagree and so would historians bud. The exact date of the census of quirinius is known (6CE), i did not make an assumption. The romans were very meticulous in the records they kept.

 

There was no census done earlier than that date? Ok, prove that this census was taken in 6CE and show your sources.

 

Galatians 3 v 13, Acts 10 v 39 and 5 v 30 (depends on the translation you have, some say tree, some say gibbet)

 

I've read all of it. It said 'tree'. So it was a 'tree'.

 

The point is that these guys were supposed to be Jesus's close followers and yet they can't agree on what the last words he spoke were!

 

However, that does not preclude the possibility that Jesus said ALL those words in a composite sence.

 

Here's one more contradiction....

In matthew, Judas Iscariot hangs himself, (Matt 27 v 5), in acts of the apostles he dies after an accidental fall and his guts fall out (excessively graphic dont you think?) (acts 1 v 18).

 

His "fallling headlong" (Acts 1:18, 19) is generally supposed to have happened while he was attempting to hang himself over a ledge, then he fell into the valley below.

[d'Arthez]

God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The essential meaning of sin is transgressing against God, disobeying God. They went against the word of God to eat the fruit, as God told them not to eat the fruit, or else they would die.

Yet, that implied they had knowledge of good and evil. Because if they did not, they could not see a moral wrong with the decision to eat from the tree. And if they have knowledge, the whole idea of the tree of Knowledge becomes shaky at best.

 

In terms of a theological issue, it is quite irrelevant what was going on in their heads, the point is they disobeyed God, and corrupted the human race as a result of that disobedience.

And that is exactly the point that can be debated.

 

The term relibable is meant for 'complete' census. Both census are otherwise equally reliable - depending on whether or not you think it is fair that a couple of tribes may have been excluded from one of them. The best term I should have used was 'complete' instead of 'reliable'.

How could it be reliable if it is true without fault?

 

I doubt your online name here is the same as your offline. People also refer to your middle and last names. I do not just have one name.

Yes, but you can't claim in court that today you are Casper, and because at the time you killed a person your name was John, that you are innocent. Furthermore, unless you live in a place I don't think you live, you will only have but one(!) fulll legal name. Say it is John. Whether people call you Johnie, Fatty does not change the fact that your name is John.

 

Not really, you have failed to show any contradictions. Your examples are very weak and inconclusive, and do not show contradictions on spiritual doctrinal points. The Bible is coherent, and it explains itself pretty well.

Oh yes they do. As your whole interpretation of the eating of the Tree of Knowledge is debatable, and anything but factual. That you believe otherwise, does not prove it is true. If I believe I am a millionaire, it does not mean that everyone will allow me the liberties that come with that. (Nor does it attract Gold diggers).

[Pfft]

People can dillude themselves in whatever makes them feel better for when they die, but I hate people who are so self righeouss to think that they can go enlighten other people about "there personal dillusional relationship with thin air"

 

No thanks.

 

Athiesm +1

[Bogun]

Nah, the same person had two different names. Like Matthew and Levi were different names for the same person.

I take it this is referring to the different geneologies? So you're saying that they just decided to call one person by 2 different names? OMG Admiral your the same as so many other christians when they get cornered in a debate; they revert to rediculous defences.

 

As for the census... do your own research. Quirinius was the governor of syria at that time.

 

His "fallling headlong" (Acts 1:18, 19) is generally supposed to have happened while he was attempting to hang himself over a ledge, then he fell into the valley below.

So your avoiding the contradiction by coming up with an hypothesised death. Suicide and accidental death are different. There is no suggestion in the accidental death story that Judas was trying to hang himself.

 

Your arguments against the facts I put down, and which are supported by historians are typical of christians when faced with things they can't answer. The same as when you point out to christians that in ancient greece, syria, egypt (several centuries before jesus), they had god-man figures eg osiris-dionysus, mithra, baccas and many more, whose stories are remarkably similar to jesus'. The christians answer = it was the devils work imitating the future life of jesus.

[HotCaliGirl]

Abortion is a sin - it is murder. However, the aborted child will go to heaven.

Even if the aborted child were to grow up, and end up wicked and go to hell - it is still murder. Mothers can not play God.

How is it murder when the bible doesn't discuss this? In fact I think it says the soul enters once the child exits the womb. God has not given man (mothers) power enough to play God so that does not make sense that Motehrs play god by the act of abortion.

 

Hell was created for the devil and his angles.

Again, why would God, the "loving: God, create such an evil place like hell to begin with? and if it was "Lucifer" who did, why woud God create such an evil being then allow him to create Hell and let hell exist? Does Lucifer therefore have more say in the matter than God or is God then not so loving as everyone makes him out to be that he would allow such a place to exist?

 

However, the first intelligent persons, Adam and Eve, did not have to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but they choose to anyway. It seems that people have a problem obeying even very basic and simple commands to save their life and soul.

But if God is Love as Christians say, and he cares so much, why would he allow evil to exist in the first place, making it a tempting object for humans to choose? Why not have free will without adding evil and negative factors into the mix? We would be peaceful, happy people without fearing murder, war and other ill fates, since God would not make such evil possible. That's what I woud do if I were God.

 

The fact of the matter, is that Jesus already died for your sin. You just have to look to Him and believe and invite Him into your life. It is that simple to miss hell.

But if there is so much misery in the world, the men I have been with have abused me and I have even attempted suicide in the past, why should I worship Jesus, even if he died for my sins, when he has the power to not include suffering into the mix of things, or is he not all that loving and compassionate as we make him out to be????????????????????

The Bible does not say anything about the fate of animals, other then their spirit 'descends down'. Animals appearently just die.

This makes life meaningless, if animals just die, when they too are "alive" due to a spirit, otherwise we could re-create a living animal in a test-tube or in the lab. So I don't get it.

Animals, like lions, pitbulls, or dogs are evil because of the effects of sin.

After Adam ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and his wife Eve, then the world dramatically changed. Nature warped and mutated into what it is now.

Why would a "loving" God tempt the very frist humans to breath, to exist, with temptations that have negative consequences when they have no education and references and experiences or advice, are as innocent as they come, up against """GOD!!!!!!!!"""...hell, it's like a trap! who WOULDN'T eat of that tree, so why is God supposedly so loving when he SETS UP human for failure and to experiences such severe consequences for giving into temptation ruled by biology and no other references or insight to go by?

The Bible teaches that in the future, Jesus Christ will restore nature to its proper place, and that there will be no dangerous animals. Lions and Lambs would live peacefully with each other.

Why didn't He make them peaceful to begin with if he can do whatever he wants to and is supposedly "LOVE/LOVING"???

The concept of children going to heaven is that they are safe with God, and that they are unable to have the capacity to tell the difference between right or wrong, and thus unable to choose to sin against God.

So why does God give adults the option to sin against Him??? why does he create such evilness when he could not do that, and chooses to only allow people under a certain age not to sin against him???????????? For someone to merit such praising over the years and to be equated to love, why would He set things up like that/set things for failure basically? That's not love, if I was the master and creator of everything, I wouldn't want people to suffer and set traps for them to error and go to hell or be miserable, get abused or tortured or killed needlessly.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Yet' date=' that implied they had knowledge of good and evil. Because if they did not, they could not see a moral wrong with the decision to eat from the tree. And if they have knowledge, the whole idea of the tree of Knowledge becomes shaky at best. [/quote']

 

They had enough knowledge to know the consequences that would follow if they ate the fruit. God told them if they ate the fruit they will surely die.

 

Yes, but you can't claim in court that today you are Casper, and because at the time you killed a person your name was John, that you are innocent. Furthermore, unless you live in a place I don't think you live, you will only have but one(!) fulll legal name. Say it is John. Whether people call you Johnie, Fatty does not change the fact that your name is John.

 

It does not mean that people have to be called by their 'legal' names in the Bible. It is a Bible, not a book of legal names. If Matthew's nickname was Levi, and the disciples called him Levi too for some reason, then it's perfectly understandable if he's referred to by both names.

[Admiral Thrawn]

People can dillude themselves in whatever makes them feel better for when they die, but I hate people who are so self righeouss to think that they can go enlighten other people about "there personal dillusional relationship with thin air"

 

No thanks.

 

Athiesm +1

 

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

 

As you can see, the Bible allows for your attitude in this chapter and verse.

[quankanne]

So why does God give adults the option to sin against Him??? why does he create such evilness when he could not do that, and chooses to only allow people under a certain age not to sin against him???????????? For someone to merit such praising over the years and to be equated to love, why would He set things up like that/set things for failure basically? That's not love, if I was the master and creator of everything, I wouldn't want people to suffer and set traps for them to error and go to hell or be miserable, get abused or tortured or killed needlessly.

 

am going to address this final question since it seems to be a wrap-up of everything you asked prior:

 

God gives us the "option" to sin by giving us free will. We're free to love him, or not. We're free to believe in him, or not. We're free to sin, or not. We have the option to avoid sin as well as to indulge in it. And God loves us enough to let us make our own decision, much in the way a parent must learn to trust in his or her child's decisions as that child grows. He doesn't set us up for the "failure" of sin, it's a choice we make freely each and every time we encounter it.

 

God didn't create evil – evil is the result of a jealous angel named Lucifer, who thought God a fool for creating (and loving) humans. He thought humans were inferior and couldn't understand why God would love them the way he did; Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast from heaven into the realm we call hell.

 

incidentally, abortion *is* murder because it's the taking of a life. From the time of conception, that fetus, child, baby is unique unto itself and is like no other. It's not a rutebega, it's not a meaningless clump of cells, it's a human life even if it doesn't resemble a human as we know it. When someone decides to abort a child, just in the same way someone decides to outright kill a child or an adult already born, it's murder.

 

what it all boils down to is that we ultimately decide our behavior, and if you believe in an afterlife, you claim the prize of heaven or hell based upon your behavior by following God or rejecting him.

[d'Arthez]

They had enough knowledge to know the consequences that would follow if they ate the fruit. God told them if they ate the fruit they will surely die.

But then the tree of Knowledge was not the tree of Knowledge. If they could distinguish between right and wrong, and experience no shame, the story has a totally different meaning - namely (in its most radical form) that God is to blame!

 

And furthermore that is still not inconsistent with the idea of a rebellion against God, which meant that the eating of the fruit was indeed the first act of Freedom - and NOT the first sin.

 

And how could they even imagine death, a concept God even had to apply to the world? That is only possible if they were Divine themselves - but they lacked knowledge; and can we imagine divinity without knowledge? Can divinity exist without knowledge.

[Admiral Thrawn]

I take it this is referring to the different geneologies? So you're saying that they just decided to call one person by 2 different names? OMG Admiral your the same as so many other christians when they get cornered in a debate; they revert to rediculous defences.

 

It is not a redicolous defense, the problem is, you have come up with a ridicolous contradiction.

 

As for the census... do your own research. Quirinius was the governor of syria at that time.

 

Ok, so we are dealing with some point of fact in debate that you can not prove, and I'm going to have to search on my own. I have a Bible infront of me. Let's stick to the Bible then because I'm not going to start doing a major research project.

 

So your avoiding the contradiction by coming up with an hypothesised death. Suicide and accidental death are different. There is no suggestion in the accidental death story that Judas was trying to hang himself.

 

For the record, the Bible never said in the book of Acts that it was an accident. Based on it's account, it does not preclude the possibility that this happened when Judas was trying to hang itself, nor can you demonstrate conclusively that it precludes that possibility.

 

When you can piece two different accounts together to create a composite picture then I do not accept that as any contradiction. If you are unable to create a composite by two seperate accounts, then I would consider that to be a case.

 

Your arguments against the facts I put down, and which are supported by historians are typical of christians when faced with things they can't answer.

 

Oh, you are talking about the Census, that I have to undertake to do research about and you cant provide any proof of where you heard this?

 

The same as when you point out to christians that in ancient greece, syria, egypt (several centuries before jesus), they had god-man figures eg osiris-dionysus, mithra, baccas and many more, whose stories are remarkably similar to jesus'. The christians answer = it was the devils work imitating the future life of jesus.

 

You are speaking from ignorance. These type of religions have started with Nimrod. They are perversions of Genesis 3:15 - where God promised a seed through a woman that would conquer the devil. The devil's response to that promise was as follows:

 

1) Send evil angles to corrupt the human race by having sex/marrying all the women, so that the seed would no longer come from women.

---> God's response was that this was all wiped out in a Great Flood.

 

2) Creation of a goddess-son religion from the time of Nimrod and the tower of Babyel. Nimrod married his mother, and his new son was god-like, creating the genesis of the mother-goddess religion.

 

3) Herod tried to kill all the Jews less than 2 years old, by Bethlehem, with hopes Jesus would also be killed (Matthew)

 

Just to name a few.

 

If the devil got a promise, on Genesis 3:15, that he is going to be defeated through some seed of a women, you do not think he is just going to do nothing about it? Do you not think it'll do everything in its power to attack the seed, or confuse people about the seed?

 

Virtially most, if not all polytheistic religions have some sort of feature like that. That is because the devil is a good counterfeiter.

[Admiral Thrawn]

How is it murder when the bible doesn't discuss this? In fact I think it says the soul enters once the child exits the womb. God has not given man (mothers) power enough to play God so that does not make sense that Motehrs play god by the act of abortion.

 

The Bible actually does discuss it. It's account is in Psalm 139:13

"For thou hast possessed my reigns: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb."

 

Again, why would God, the "loving: God, create such an evil place like hell to begin with? and if it was "Lucifer" who did, why woud God create such an evil being then allow him to create Hell and let hell exist? Does Lucifer therefore have more say in the matter than God or is God then not so loving as everyone makes him out to be that he would allow such a place to exist?

 

God created hell for the devil and his angels. Now, anyone who stays with the devil and his angels and neglects or rejects Christ, also joins them.

 

But if God is Love as Christians say, and he cares so much, why would he allow evil to exist in the first place, making it a tempting object for humans to choose? Why not have free will without adding evil and negative factors into the mix? We would be peaceful, happy people without fearing murder, war and other ill fates, since God would not make such evil possible. That's what I woud do if I were God.

 

We would be robots then. We are not robots or animals.

 

But if there is so much misery in the world, the men I have been with have abused me and I have even attempted suicide in the past, why should I worship Jesus, even if he died for my sins, when he has the power to not include suffering into the mix of things, or is he not all that loving and compassionate as we make him out to be????????????????????

 

The devil has caused that suffering. The devil wants you to be abused by other men, and will use other men to make that happen. The devil wants you to commit suicide so you will join it in hell. The devil wants you to blame God, to maximize its chances that it will win your soul. But, the fact is, you are alive and still here, and therefore you can defeat the devil by accepting Christ into your life. Jesus defeated the devil.

 

This makes life meaningless, if animals just die, when they too are "alive" due to a spirit, otherwise we could re-create a living animal in a test-tube or in the lab. So I don't get it.

 

That's the way it is. Animals are not like us. You can see that we are quite different than they are.

 

Why would a "loving" God tempt the very frist humans to breath, to exist, with temptations that have negative consequences when they have no education and references and experiences or advice, are as innocent as they come, up against """GOD!!!!!!!!"""...hell, it's like a trap! who WOULDN'T eat of that tree, so why is God supposedly so loving when he SETS UP human for failure and to experiences such severe consequences for giving into temptation ruled by biology and no other references or insight to go by?

 

Because the first humans were created in the image of God, and they had to have free-will, and the ability to disobey God, or turn against God in order to be truely free.

 

Why didn't He make them peaceful to begin with if he can do whatever he wants to and is supposedly "LOVE/LOVING"???

 

But he did. It is the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that corrupted the human race afterwards.

 

So why does God give adults the option to sin against Him??? why does he create such evilness when he could not do that, and chooses to only allow people under a certain age not to sin against him???????????? For someone to merit such praising over the years and to be equated to love, why would He set things up like that/set things for failure basically? That's not love, if I was the master and creator of everything, I wouldn't want people to suffer and set traps for them to error and go to hell or be miserable, get abused or tortured or killed needlessly.

 

He sent Jesus, His Son, to live among us, and die for our sins, and raise from the dead. He did not just die, He was crucified in one of the most torterous types of deaths imaginable, the Roman Crucifiction. That was to address the nature of sin, and the nature of our problem. Jesus can solve all problems as it pertains to sin.

 

The Bible says: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".

 

The Bible says, Jesus died for YOUR sins, right now, even if you do not know it yet: Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

 

Fact is, whether you believe in Christ or not, He has already provided for your sins and salvation of your soul and loves you. So you, or anyone else, does not have to go to hell.

[Admiral Thrawn]

And furthermore that is still not inconsistent with the idea of a rebellion against God, which meant that the eating of the fruit was indeed the first act of Freedom - and NOT the first sin.

 

 

Not really, they also had the freedom not to eat the fruit.

[d'Arthez]

How can freedom exist without knowledge? It did not exist - and the "sin" was necessary, and even willed by God.

 

And if I were to read a book on the tours of The Doors, and the private life of Jim Morrison as it had taken place in the period 1983 - 1987 the book may be without contradiction. But that does make the facts in the book true?

[Admiral Thrawn]

How can freedom exist without knowledge? It did not exist - and the "sin" was necessary' date=' and even willed by God. [/quote']

 

 

No, they had a high degree of freedom. Initially, they did not want or care about eating the fruit of the tree until the devil came into the picture and basically said: 'God is lying, you wont die if you eat this fruit - in fact God cant be trusted, He's holding back something from you - eat the fruit'. They ate it under a false pretense of doubt of God's commandment, and you know the rest of the story.

 

And if I were to read a book on the tours of The Doors, and the private life of Jim Morrison as it had taken place in the period 1983 - 1987 the book may be without contradiction. But that does make the facts in the book true?

 

The Bible contains 66 different books, each without contradiction for each other. Show me something else that has 66 different books without contradiction.

[lindya]

The Bible contains 66 different books, each without contradiction for each other. Show me something else that has 66 different books without contradiction.

 

I'm sure that Harlequin publications must have released many thousands of books that all told the same story.

[Moai]

How can freedom exist without knowledge? It did not exist - and the "sin" was necessary, and even willed by God.

 

And if I were to read a book on the tours of The Doors, and the private life of Jim Morrison as it had taken place in the period 1983 - 1987 the book may be without contradiction. But that does make the facts in the book true?

 

Excellent point. Something that is internally consistent may or may not be true, but something that is NOT internally consistent cannot be true.

 

I wrote a long response to one of Admiral Thrawn's posts to me, but my browser is all wacky, so i'll repeat thee gist of it here:

 

You asked why I don't talk to god. I can't talk to something that doesn't exist--well, I suppose I could but that would make me crazy or stupid, or both.

 

But let's look at hat you believe, based on your very own book:

 

You believe in magic trees, that have magic fruit that can impart knowledge and make you immortal.

 

You believe that snakes and mules can talk.

 

You believe that there is a such thing as a witch (Wicca aside, of course).

 

You believe that there is a being out there somewhere, created by the same being that created YOU, whose only reason for existence is to punish and deceive you.

 

You believe that zombies are real.

 

You believe that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

You believe that killing a couple of pidgeons and rubbing their blood on someone sures leprosy.

 

You believe that demons possess people, and can be cast into animals.

 

You believe that menstrating women are unclean.

 

You believe that people turn into salt.

 

You believe that if a cow looks at a spotted stick, it's offspring will come out spotted.

 

You believe that god wrestles people, and loses.

 

Shall I go on?

 

And I am foolish for rejecting that. Puhleeeze.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Excellent point. Something that is internally consistent may or may not be true, but something that is NOT internally consistent cannot be true.

 

I wrote a long response to one of Admiral Thrawn's posts to me, but my browser is all wacky, so i'll repeat thee gist of it here:

 

No, your browers isn't wacky, perhaps it was of God that it did not work.

[converse02]

i was thinking about something which is quite confusing.People say god is neither a he or a she.Hes not human.So why does he have human emotions?People say he loves us all..... that is a human emotion.He punishes people by not letting them go to heaven as they have been bad.Adam and eve he punished them as they betrayed him.He was upset and angry so he punished them.Human emotion again.

 

Well what im trying to say is that if god is a god and he isnt human in any way why does he have feelings and emotions?

 

As an atheist, I say God has human emotions because he was created by humans. Priests and church leaders anthromorphized God, as humans often do.

 

When you really thing about, it doesn't make any sense that God has emotions. In the Bible, God gets jealous, surprised and angry often. But if you're all-knowing and all-powerful, how is if POSSIBLE for you to get jealous, surprised or angry? The original God in the Bible is no different than Zeus or Odin. It was over time, people gave this imaginary being the qualities of being all-powerful, all knowing, being everywhere and having emotion. But they didn't realize how illogical such as being is. .

[Bogun]

It is not a redicolous defense, the problem is, you have come up with a ridicolous contradiction.

What is rediculous about the fact that two books in the bible give completely different lineages back to david??? The logical explanation for the difference is that there was no direct line from david to a person called jesus. The authors had to make one up because the prophesy said that the messiah would be the decendent of david.

 

For the record, the Bible never said in the book of Acts that it was an accident.

Then perhaps you should buy a different version of the bible. It says it in the one I found, and it says it in the one used by historians who found these contradictions. I didnt go through the bible finding contradictions, I listed the well known ones that scholars have found, based on studying early manuscripts.

 

Here's another llittle problem with the gospels. Jesus said in a number of passages, (I will reference them later if you don't believe me), that the end of the world/second coming, would occur before some of the disciples died. We're still here, no "second coming" yet, and all those disciples are long dead. It makes sense if you take it metaphorically. Makes no sense if you take it literally.

 

No, your browers isn't wacky, perhaps it was of God that it did not work.

If anyone else said this on LS I would assume they were joking, but with you admiral......

[Moai]

No, your browers isn't wacky, perhaps it was of God that it did not work.

 

I'm sure that's it. God, instead of taking the time to save people who believe in him from natural disater or disease, takes the time to mess with my posts. Sadly, given his track record, that makes perfect sense.