God releases Satan ? Why God allow Evil to exist?

[Saint]

The Revelation says, Satan will be jailed 1000 years, after that it will be released to confuse nations.

Why like that?

[Phobos]

Also, why was the devil allowed to exist in the first place?

[hypnagogue]

I think the basic idea is that the devil was initially an angel with free will. This angel used its free will to disobey God and so was banished.

[Zero]

IT IS A FAIRY TALE!!

Whew!!

See, in a fairy tale, you have to have the good guy and the bad guy. In the Bible, without a super-powerful bad guy, the 'God' character, being all powerful, would have to take the blame for evil as well as good, so a second characher was created. It still doesn't make sense to the nonbelievers, of course, because a critical look would show that an [i]all-knowing, all powerful[i] being would have to be psychotic to create its own enemies...unless it is, as I said, a fairy tale.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Saint
The Revelation says, Satan will be jailed 1000 years, after that it will be released to confuse nations.

Why like that?Because without somebody to tempt us to do wrong (or bad), then it would not "expose" us to our weaknesses, and we would not inquire (of God) about how to grow beyond it, "spiritually."

[Saint]

According to bible, God wants everone to believe in Jesus and saved, but Satan wants people to disbelieve God and sin.
If without Satan's influence, there should be more people to believe in Jesus and do less sin. However, God seems do not know this fact and allow Satan to work freely on people.

Isn't this ridiculous ?[:D]

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Saint
The Revelation says, Satan will be jailed 1000 years, after that it will be released to confuse nations.

Why like that?

maybe after 1000 years he finally changed his lawyer....[6)] [6)]

[Laser Eyes]

Also, why was the devil allowed to exist in the first place?Phobos, you may have seen it already but you might find an answer to that question in my first post in this thread:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=829

[Zero]

Originally posted by Saint
According to bible, God wants everone to believe in Jesus and saved, but Satan wants people to disbelieve God and sin.
If without Satan's influence, there should be more people to believe in Jesus and do less sin. However, God seems do not know this fact and allow Satan to work freely on people.

Isn't this ridiculous ?[:D] Yes, it is. I'll make an atheist out of you yet![g)]

[Wasper]

The Revelation says, Satan will be jailed 1000 years, after that it will be released to confuse nations.

Maybe it was done so the world wouldn't be so goody two-shoe and boring? Conflicts is what makes the world so lively and fun.

The question I ask is why are we punished for following the evil that god himself has created? If this is so, shouldn't we be punish for following the good that he created also?

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Zero
IT IS A FAIRY TALE!!


Probably a good answer...but it won't get people to think about their beliefs. [;)]

[Phobos]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I think the basic idea is that the devil was initially an angel with free will. This angel used its free will to disobey God and so was banished.

Right. But since the Bible shows that God destroys things which displease Him, why not a fallen angel too?

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because without somebody to tempt us to do wrong (or bad), then it would not "expose" us to our weaknesses, and we would not inquire (of God) about how to grow beyond it, "spiritually."

Human nature is not enough? I don't think Judeo-Christian beliefs are such that all sin is due to a devil.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Phobos, you may have seen it already but you might find an answer to that question in my first post in this thread:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=829

Still reading through it...

[Les Sleeth]

I continue to despair over seeing, on the one hand, diligence toward understanding science issues by members here, and on the other hand, such utter carelessness toward understanding the history of the God concept.

Tell me please . . .what possible excuse is there for sloppy scholarship in a science-oriented, public forum?

What I wouldn't give for some participation by members who've thoroughly studied the archeology, history, anthropology, literature, etc. of God belief, and who offer up for everyone actual, genuine, real informed opinions rather than the superficial knee-jerk opinionated crap prevalent here.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
Yes, it is. I'll make an atheist out of you yet![g)]

This is a charming sentiment. Too bad the position of atheism is just as logically flawed as the position of theism; belief in the non-existence of God has no more justification than belief in God. I'm all for questioning beliefs in the spirit of open discussion, but what amounts to nothing more than simple meme machines on either side of the equation are generally not very conducive to open discussion.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I continue to despair over seeing, on the one hand, diligence toward understanding science issues by members here, and on the other hand, such utter carelessness toward understanding the history of the God concept.

Tell me please . . .what possible excuse is there for sloppy scholarship in a science-oriented, public forum?

What I wouldn't give for some participation by members who've thoroughly studied the archeology, history, anthropology, literature, etc. of God belief, and who offer up for everyone actual, genuine, real informed opinions rather than the superficial knee-jerk opinionated crap prevalent here. Actually there are people discussing these issues intelligently, although some of us would rather fight it out in the trenches I guess? And hey, don't forget to tell Brian I referred you. [;)]

http://www.comparative-religion.com

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Phobos
Human nature is not enough? I don't think Judeo-Christian beliefs are such that all sin is due to a devil. If you understood the spiritual implications here, that all outcroppings of evil are due to man's ignorance, and that yes, the Devil is in fact man (gone to hell), then human nature would suffice.

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
This is a charming sentiment. Too bad the position of atheism is just as logically flawed as the position of theism; belief in the non-existence of God has no more justification than belief in God. I'm all for questioning beliefs in the spirit of open discussion, but what amounts to nothing more than simple meme machines on either side of the equation are generally not very conducive to open discussion. Too bad you don't actually know what Atheism means, or you wouldn't have posted teh way you did.

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I continue to despair over seeing, on the one hand, diligence toward understanding science issues by members here, and on the other hand, such utter carelessness toward understanding the history of the God concept.

Tell me please . . .what possible excuse is there for sloppy scholarship in a science-oriented, public forum?

What I wouldn't give for some participation by members who've thoroughly studied the archeology, history, anthropology, literature, etc. of God belief, and who offer up for everyone actual, genuine, real informed opinions rather than the superficial knee-jerk opinionated crap prevalent here. Uh huh...for instance, most respected Biblical scholars laugh at the idea of taking the Bible literally.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...for instance, most respected Biblical scholars laugh at the idea of taking the Bible literally.

First of all, I have to apologize for my little fit, it had been a lonnnnng day.

However, you do make a point. It makes no sense for people today to relate to ancient myth as fact, especially myth developed by primitive, superstitious people, or the case of Christianity to accept any theology developed by popes, theologians, or even disciples.

When people sit around talking about God allowing evil, hell, heaven, sin, miracles, and the whole list of stuff people have made up or figured out, they don't even know if it is from the acknowledged masters like Jesus or Moses or the Buddha or whomever . . . or if it is myth or dogma or some pope's proclamation a thousand years ago, or Dante's Inferno . . .

For the most part, what started the major religions was an individual's personal experience. It is my opinion that that experience is the only thing worth investigating in religion, yet it is just about the last thing anybody, whether believer or athiest, is trying to understand or experience.

That is why I continue to complain about the quality of research and thought behind most of the comments in the religion forum.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
Too bad you don't actually know what Atheism means, or you wouldn't have posted teh way you did.

From dicionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com):
atheism
1 a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1 b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

disbelief
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

From Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com):
atheism
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

disbelief
the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Atheism is the simply the philosophical stance of disbelief in God; in other words, it is the rejection of the existentence of God as untrue. There is a separate term for doubt or skepticism of the existence of God, without the distinct belief that God must not exist. It's called agnosticism.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
When people sit around talking about God allowing evil, hell, heaven, sin, miracles, and the whole list of stuff people have made up or figured out, they don't even know if it is from the acknowledged masters like Jesus or Moses or the Buddha or whomever . . . or if it is myth or dogma or some pope's proclamation a thousand years ago, or Dante's Inferno . . .

For the most part, what started the major religions was an individual's personal experience. It is my opinion that that experience is the only thing worth investigating in religion, yet it is just about the last thing anybody, whether believer or athiest, is trying to understand or experience.

That is why I continue to complain about the quality of research and thought behind most of the comments in the religion forum.

Exactly, Les. I am no fan of religious dogma myself. But I do have issues with people categorically denying the existence of God, not because I am a believer in God, but because it is a simple fact of our society that the concept of God is associated with spirituality. While it is fruitful to examine religious dogma and all the unnecessary suffering and ignorance it is undeniably associated with, outright and blind rejection of God amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

It does not logically follow that if one does not believe in God, then one cannot be spiritual. However, if we seek to rid people of any meaningful conception of God, we also damage their potential for spiritual growth simply because of the pre-existing ties in popular thought between God and spirituality. One who rejects God outright and develops a jaded attitude to all things religious is probably disinclined to give the notion of spiritual value and growth any meaningful consideration, because without further critical thought the chances are that they will accept their conditioned tendency to equate religion and God with spirituality itself. Such blatant disregard for the relevance of spiritual value and growth indeed makes itself apparent time and again in the attitudes of many of those who believe they are 'fighting the good fight' by attempting to dispell the popular hold of dogmatic belief. Unfortunately, such people conceive of themselves as battling a cancer when in actuality they are killing an entire organism. In their zeal to counter the superfluous doctrines and dogmas of religion they are missing the truly relevant and meaningful essence of the religious message.

I absolutely agree with you that the true spirituality must be actively practiced and experienced first-hand in order for the individual to have any meaningful grasp of its importance. This is why it is essential that we do not jade people to such an extent that they never give serious consideration to any spiritual practices, or worse, mindlessly reject them in knee-jerk fashion. It's no wonder why people concentrate on the fluff of religion without ever getting to the meat, and this is really the true cancer infecting contemporary religious thought.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
From dicionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com):
atheism
1 a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1 b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

disbelief
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

From Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com):
atheism
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

disbelief
the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Atheism is the simply the philosophical stance of disbelief in God; in other words, it is the rejection of the existentence of God as untrue. There is a separate term for doubt or skepticism of the existence of God, without the distinct belief that God must not exist. It's called agnosticism.
Atheism is much less than this, as reading a tad further down at the dictionary.com website goes on to explain;

atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Taken from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

It is inaccurate to omit #2.

It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism......Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
- Dan Barker

[hypnagogue]

Granted that that one definition implies that one does not have to disbelieve in God to be an atheist (I didn't intentionally omit it, rather I didn't scroll down all the way). But every other definition cited points to atheism as a distinct disbelief in God. Further compounding the issue is that we already have another word to indicate lack of belief in God without outright disbelief in God, which is agnosticism. Why, if one holds the agnostic view, would one insist on calling oneself an atheist? All the primary definitions for atheism cite a definite disbelief in God; using the secondary definition when there is a distinct word that describes the same thing without ambiguity only causes confusion and misunderstanding.

[hypnagogue]

Happily, Zero has indirectly asserted why he agrees with my problem of this usage of the word 'atheism.'

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5696&perpage=15&pagenumber=2 [;)]

[BoulderHead]

Until around three-hundred years ago, the word atheist was applied to people as a smear. If someone didn’t share the same convictions they might be labeled an atheist. No doubt the meanings of words will continue to change over the course of time, but this in and of itself has no bearing to the views that I hold.
One view I hold is that theists seem to have a tough time actually being able to come to grips with someone who holds no theist beliefs. Defining atheism as a belief is a result of this sort of thinking, But, if theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods (and I think it is), then A-theism is to me nothing but a lack of theism.

Furthermore, if an agnostic does not deny the existence of God but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not such a thing exists, then as an atheist I have to disagree because there are many people who seem to know for certain that such a thing exists, haha. In that case it might be construed that agnostics, not atheists, have a ‘belief’ after all. [:D]

Now, I have no magic crystal ball granting me power to view the future, but I do believe that sufficient subjective evidence can and does present itself to an individual such that he/she may become 100% convinced that god(s) exists. Therefore I prefer to say that evidence does exist, but this ‘evidence’ is valid only for that individual and not for me. Unfortunately, rarely does this satisfy the theists.

"*Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief.* One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-- and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. *Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief.* An atheist is not primarily a person who *believes* that a god does *not* exist, rather he does *not believe* in the existence of a god."
-George Smith

[hypnagogue]

Dictionary.com:
agnositicim
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

---

That doctrine which, professing ignorance, neither asserts nor denies. Specifically: (Theol.) The doctrine that the existence of a personal Deity, an unseen world, etc., can be neither proved nor disproved, because of the necessary limits of the human mind (as sometimes charged upon Hamilton and Mansel), or because of the insufficiency of the evidence furnished by physical and physical data, to warrant a positive conclusion (as taught by the school of Herbert Spencer); -- opposed alike dogmatic skepticism and to dogmatic theism.

---

1: a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" 2: the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge

-----

Merriam-Webster:
agnostic
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

---

All I am saying is that 'agnosticism' better captures the views of those (on this forum at least) who present their arguments against theistic belief than 'atheism.' Atheism's primary definition is disbelief in God, whereas agnosticism's primary definition relates to both our inability to produce positive evidence of the existence of God and our inability to falsify it. Thus, atheism's primary definition is one of definite belief, whereas agnosticism is not a belief as to the definite existence or non-existence of God under any interpretation, but rather a mode of skeptic thought.

You don't have to look too closely to see that agnosticism's specific mode of skepticism is precisely a scientific skepticism, ie it posits that "only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge," and thus that we have insufficient objective physical evidence to either falsify the existence of God or warrant a positive conclusion. This is precisely the argument used by just about every self-proclaimed atheist in this forum who argues against theism (makes sense; this is a forum based on scientific thought after all). Thus, while it may not be strictly incorrect to call these people atheists, it does not agree with the primary definition of the word and furthermore these beliefs are much better captured by the term 'agnostic.' Insisting on the use of the word 'atheism' as opposed to 'agnosticism' when you are skeptical of God's existence on scientific grounds, but when you simultaneously don't have a definite disbelief in God, only confuses the issue by making your stance unnecessarily ambiguous.

Furthermore, if an agnostic does not deny the existence of God but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not such a thing exists, then as an atheist I have to disagree because there are many people who seem to know for certain that such a thing exists, haha. In that case it might be construed that agnostics, not atheists, have a ‘belief’ after all.

Theism necessarily contradicts agnosticism, but it also contradicts atheism too. This has no bearing on the validity of agnosticism or atheism for the agnostic or atheist, respectively.

Now, I have no magic crystal ball granting me power to view the future, but I do believe that sufficient subjective evidence can and does present itself to an individual such that he/she may become 100% convinced that god(s) exists. Therefore I prefer to say that evidence does exist, but this ‘evidence’ is valid only for that individual and not for me. Unfortunately, rarely does this doesn’t satisfy the theists.

In other words, you hold that there is no objective, physical evidence for the existence of God. You furthermore characterize whatever subjective evidence that may exist as that which is sufficient to convince an individual that God exists, while refraining from granting this subjective evidence any real objective truth value-- you say that it convinces the individual, not that the individual really knows the truth of the matter (ie, has 'ultimate knowledge'). This is a very agnostic position.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm just haggling over definitions here, but I think I have a valid point. Why use an ambiguous word that inevitably causes confusion and misinterpretation of your beliefs when you can use a more precise one that better captures the essence of your stance on the matter?

edit: Just to clarify my own stance in case I have been ambiguous, I myself am an agnostic. I say this because I caught something in a previous post that could be interpretted as implying that I'm a theist and I'm not sure, BH, if you were referring to me specifically as one of these theists or if you were just making claims about theists in general.

[Iacchus32]

So whatever happened to the Devil? Unless of course you're implying it has something to do with Atheism here? [;)]

But then again I suppose that's what so-called Christians would have you believe. Which, dare I say it, due to their nature of being so hasty about such things, could be construed as an evil in and of itself.

In fact, from what I understand, this is the very thing the book of Revelation refers to when Gods releases Satan, the Christian Church as we know it (more so The Reformation).

[BoulderHead]

Dictionary.com:
agnositicim
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

---

That doctrine which, professing ignorance, neither asserts nor denies.
Read the second half of 2 again and you can see that agnostics can indeed assert a believe that God does not exist.
[Oop,s]
Sorry, the belief above is that there can be no proof, not that god doesn't exist.

All I am saying is that 'agnosticism' better captures the views of those (on this forum at least) who present their arguments against theistic belief than 'atheism.'
And I simply do not agree for the reasons already stated.
Insisting on the use of the word 'atheism' as opposed
to 'agnosticism' when you are skeptical of God's existence on scientific grounds, but when you simultaneously don't have a definite disbelief in God, only confuses the issue by making your stance unnecessarily ambiguous.
I didn’t say I was skeptical on merely scientific grounds. I have other grounds too.
In other words, you hold that there is no objective, physical evidence for the existence of God. You furthermore characterize whatever subjective evidence that may exist as that which is sufficient to convince an individual that God exists, while refraining from granting this subjective evidence any real objective truth value-- you say that it convinces the individual, not that the individual really knows the truth of the matter (ie, has 'ultimate knowledge'). This is a very agnostic position.
The bold text is what you say, the normal text is what I would say providing we have an agreement on the definition of the word ‘objective’. Language is a tricky thing and it can be difficult to get your meaning across.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm just haggling over definitions here, but I think I have a valid point. Why use an ambiguous word that inevitably causes confusion and misinterpretation of your beliefs when you can use a more precise one that better captures the essence of your stance on the matter?
Because I do not hold the same definition as you.

edit: Just to clarify my own stance in case I have been ambiguous, I myself am an agnostic. I say this because I caught something in a previous post that could be interpretted as implying that I'm a theist and I'm not sure, BH, if you were referring to me specifically as one of these theists or if you were just making claims about theists in general.
See what I mean about language being tricky? I was not thinking about your religious views at all, merely stating what my own non-religious views are. In other words it was a general statement.

I think I have explained my views well enough, but let’s see about the origin of the word ‘agnostic’ and note especially the text I chose to put a bold face on;

Perhaps the most misunderstood word (and the reasoning behind its formation) is 'agnostic'. Before the 20th Century, the word 'atheist' was a very 'dirty' word. (It still is today in the minds of many believers.) Rather than be a description of someone who lacked a belief in god, which is clearly what Huxley did--he claimed that '99 out of 100 of my fellows would call me Atheist', an atheist in those days generally described a person who rebelled against current society, was a socialist, and sought revolutionary reform (similar to Napoleonic France). Non-believing, non-socialistic, respectable people who, although wanting reform, weren't nearly as radical or violent in their views needed a word to describe their beliefs or outlook on life. To use the word 'atheist' in Huxley's day, even though it only means non-theist would have lumped him, and others like him, in with the socialists, Huxley created the word in response to this environment. Other freethinkers quickly adopted the word, and it has remained a part of English vocabulary to this day.

Taken from; http://www.2think.org/huxley.shtml

[edited for clarification]

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
The bold text is what you say, the normal text is what I would say providing we have an agreement on the definition of the word ‘objective’. Language is a tricky thing and it can be difficult to get your meaning across.

Well, the trickiness of language can be the only explanation, since the bold text was just an explication of what you directly implied with the language that you used. If the bold text doesn't agree with your philosophy then you should have worded your statement more carefully.

The information on the history of the usages of the words is insightful but not really relevant. All that matters is how the words are defined nowadays.

You still haven't explained yourself well enough to convince me that 'agnosticism' does not better capture your beliefs than 'atheism,' but I suppose this is a moot point. I'm not going to tell you what to call yourself, I was just calling for a more precise and accurate use of language. Apparently this is a problem no matter what label we decide to use, since the brunt of your argument on how your beliefs are really better described as atheistic rather than agnostic is still not getting across to me. I still stand by what I have said, but rather than carry on this conversation ad infinitum, I will just respectfully recognize that the labels 'agnostic' and 'atheist' in common usage do not hold as much meaning as their formal definitions might imply and that there are gray areas in any case.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Well, the trickiness of language can be the only explanation, since the bold text was just an explication of what you directly implied with the language that you used. If the bold text doesn't agree with your philosophy then you should have worded your statement more carefully.
I agree that the author has a responsibility to put their thoughts across as clearly as possible.

The information on the history of the usages of the words is insightful but not really relevant. All that matters is how the words are defined nowadays.
Really, I wonder why there is so much haggling over definitions of words in the philosophy forum, in that case, haha.
At any rate, what I took from that quoted material was that were it not for negative connotations, the word atheist would have sufficed and the word agnostic would not need to have been invented.

You still haven't explained yourself well enough to convince me that 'agnosticism' does not better capture your beliefs than 'atheism,' but I suppose this is a moot point.
I though I had, but I’ll try again;

a-1 or an-
pref:
Without

theism
n :
the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.

Therefore;
Atheism: Without the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.

…I will just respectfully recognize that the labels 'agnostic' and 'atheist' in common usage do not hold as much meaning as their formal definitions might imply and that there are gray areas in any case.
That is precisely the case.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

OK, just to clear things up and get back to the subject which is the Evil ("the room door creeks..."[!:)] )

The set of agnostics is included in, equals or includes the set of atheists?

[BoulderHead]

Guybrush,
Teehehe, you're right about the topic going off course. You can look for your answer here;


http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5889

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
See, in a fairy tale, you have to have the good guy and the bad guy. In real life they always come in pairs as well (good/bad, strong/weak, etc). I won't argue that the Bible is real, its not relevant to the general point: EVERY coin has another side created just out of opposition from the front side. Someone will always argue the other side and a leader of that other side will emerge.

For example, the French are leading what some have called the "Coalition of the Unwilling" (a twist on Bush's "Coalition of the Willing"). The point is simply to be a leader of SOMETHING (doesn't matter what - there is always power in being a leader) by leading the opposition to the US. Oh wait, religion? Politics? Eh, same diff. [:D]

[FZ+]

EVERY coin has another side created just out of opposition from the front side.
But does this statement have any meaning when applied to an all powerful being?

Why not a mobius strip? [;)]

[Jeebus]

Maybe God was schizophrenic? Heh.

Why not a mobius strip?

Hmm, deep FZ, very deep. Addendum to this might be that God is actually a conveyor belt that has only one side and one edge!

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
But does this statement have any meaning when applied to an all powerful being? Certainly: The question "Does God exist?" is binary. There are two possible answers (plus one non-answer).

[Mumeishi]

Interestingly, the original concept of Satan was that he was a vassal (servant) of Yahweh (God) who was used to test our loyamty and punish us for transgressions. There are no references in the older OT to Satan as an independent agent.

The God described in the Old Testament was a much more wrathful and war-like entity than the modern Christian interpretation. Some of the early Christians (the Gnostics) didn't worship Yahweh at all, but saw Christ as a messenger sent to save us from this tyrant.

[FZ+]

Certainly: The question "Does God exist?" is binary. There are two possible answers (plus one non-answer).

Actually, I was referring to the binary nature argument for the existence of evil (ie. evil must exist for good to exist). The trouble is that God, as omnipotent, has no reason to require this restriction. He could create good and evil as he desires, including making them both fundamentally the same thing - as in the mobius strip.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, I was referring to the binary nature argument for the existence of evil (ie. evil must exist for good to exist). The trouble is that God, as omnipotent, has no reason to require this restriction. He could create good and evil as he desires, including making them both fundamentally the same thing - as in the mobius strip. Except for the fact that this "dualism" exists all around us, everywhere we look. Therefore good and evil have to co-exist, or else what would there be to distinguish?

Without a left there would be no right.... Without an up there would be no down.... Without a hot there would be no cold.... Etc., etc..

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Interestingly, the original concept of Satan was that he was a vassal (servant) of Yahweh (God) who was used to test our loyamty and punish us for transgressions. There are no references in the older OT to Satan as an independent agent.

The God described in the Old Testament was a much more wrathful and war-like entity than the modern Christian interpretation. Some of the early Christians (the Gnostics) didn't worship Yahweh at all, but saw Christ as a messenger sent to save us from this tyrant.

I believe the transformation of the idea of Satan happened late in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament. After the Babylonian exile, the Jews lived amongst the Persians in relative tolerance. At this time, the dominant religion of the Persians was Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic religion with a single, evil antithesis. The Persians were very influential in Jewish society. They eventually returned the Jews to Israel and commissioned the rebuilding of the temple. Those parts of the bible written after the restoration refer to Satan as an evil angel.

Also, before their exposure to the Persians, the Jews believed that other gods did exist, they were just inferior, and not meant for them. After the Persian restoration, they adhered to strict monotheism.

Njorl

[Mumeishi]

Interesting, thanks. This confers with what I've read elsewhere.

[Philosophysics]

OK OK, you can't just belittle a whole belief structure by saying it's a fairytale, everything is narrative, it is the belief and humanity that makes it real... also, even if it is just a fairytale- the historically most well documented person ever- it is one of the best expressions of how to understand the morality of consciousness for people that are not strong enough to create their own belief structures. The "story" doesn't matter because at the end of the day no one knows the truth, they only have faith in the facts they have aquired.

Think of the realm of the symbolic before the truth of science... IE Mummies stayed preserved for thousands of years bound by belief and ritual, ten years in the science museum and they're practically a pile of dust... It is the belief that is endorsed into reality that makes things real.

Why a satan... that is the nature of the human mind. We know day because it is not night, male because it is not female, it is binary opposition of the left and right brain that creates patterns and understanding. It is impossible to have the bones of an idea without bouncing off its opposite. The notion of a God controling the wheels of existence immediately gives space for thousands of other ideas to run along side.. it just so happens we usually choose opposites

[FZ+]

Except for the fact that this "dualism" exists all around us, everywhere we look. Therefore good and evil have to co-exist, or else what would there be to distinguish?

The trouble I have with this is the justification of the world "therefore". The observation that generally a state of things exist where one concept is complemented by another does not avoid the question of why this neccessity first arose, except as the explicit will of God.

By deduction then, it seems more logical for God not to be singularly good, but to be also a combination of opposites, and thus to have created an universe to fit his character.

[Saint]

boring topic, stop it![zz)]

[Slatiebartfarce]

How do you know that God and Satan are not just drinking buddies that are just doing their jobs???[!:)]

[Slatiebartfarce]

HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD ISN'T EVIL AND THE DEVIL GOOD

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Slatiebartfarce
How do you know that God and Satan are not just drinking buddies that are just doing their jobs???[!:)]

It would make (a little) more sense. For Satan to exist, an omnipotent God would have to be at least permitting him to exist and continue to do evil and cause suffering, but that puts limits on God's benevolence of course.

Christian's could actually avoid a number of logical problems if they dropped at least one "omni-" from the definition.

Does anyone really want to defend the idea that Satan exists?

[mikelus]

if there was no devil alive in this world would there be a seperation between us and god? would we have right and wrong or just god? Did god let the devil loose to our world or did we choose to let the devil loose to our world. I aways thought the devil to be gods best friend.

[Mumeishi]

There *is* supposed to be a separation between us and God. Why else would the phrase 'closer to God' have any meaning?

Humanity does not have the power to release or create a being of supernatural evil like that. Anyway, God still permits him to exist.

Hey I just thought of something! According to many Christians, God tolerates man's inhumanity to man without intervention, because he does not want to interfere with our freewill right? Well, why then does he allow Satan to intervene by 'tempting humans to the dark side'? That would interfere with our freewill too - and since Satan is really an agent of Yahweh ('God') or at least created and tolerated by him, then in fact Yahweh *is* intervening indirectly to thwart our good intentions, to actively create evil in the world.

Does that make sense for an omni-benevolent god? No. Why not?
(Hint: it's all superstitious clap-trap)

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
The trouble I have with this is the justification of the world "therefore". The observation that generally a state of things exist where one concept is complemented by another does not avoid the question of why this neccessity first arose, except as the explicit will of God.

By deduction then, it seems more logical for God not to be singularly good, but to be also a combination of opposites, and thus to have created an universe to fit his character. Although we see in stereo, our vision is singular -- except that with stereo we also see "in depth" -- much in the way the "two faces" of reality are perceived as one. And yet once we've fallen from grace, we seek to justify ourselves (via folly and error) by pitting the one extreme against the other, and use this to "crucify" that which is neutral and "bears witness" to our intemperance ...

This therein is where the evil lies ...

[FZ+]

In english?

[Mumeishi]

[suppressed snigger]

[Iacchus32]

*delete*

[Iacchus32]

First you have extremism, which exists to the far left and the far right, and you have that which is neutral and balanced that exists between the two extremes, which is temperate and mild. This is where our "singularity exists," and it's called the temperate zone.

And yet, when we're forced to choose sides, and strife (evil) enters the picture (through intemperance), we begin to play the two ends against the middle, and it's this middle ground which suffers the most (and in effect is crucified), because it hasn't fully evolved -- or, "overcompensated" -- to deal with the extremism of either side.

Haven't you ever heard of, "Playing the two ends against the middle?"

Well, I'm sure somebody can understand what I'm saying here? ...

[Mumeishi]

What is to the left and right?

Good and evil?
Liberalism and conservativism?
The two hemispheres of the brain?
Or something else?

[Iacchus32]

So, do we experience singularity by the understanding of dualism? Or, do we come into dualism by our inability to comprehend singularity? Hmm ...

In the beginning man was both male and female or, at least perceived as such, living in "spiritual harmony." This was their state before the fall, when their spirits were still capable of merging.

[FZ+]

Well, I'm sure somebody can understand what I'm saying here? ...
Yes, but I don't seen any relevance.

I am saying that your sense of how good and evil work comes from our world today, and so by looking at that, and our attitude, we would only see what was made. The experience that good is need for evil etc does not turn into a neccessity - this is just what turned out in this case, and what theism require as by the explicit will of god. The question reaches further than what you are addressing - the question is why we experience it this way, and the only obvious conclusion it that we cannot have begun from the extreme. Starting from the point of the world we see, there seems no way to reason out a god that is not neutral.

If you are making a point, I really can't tell what it is.

[mikelus]

if there was no evil in the world would there be god?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
If you are making a point, I really can't tell what it is. All I'm saying is that evil comes into existence out of a state of our being misaligned with what is singular or "neutral." And, that by going to extremes -- perhaps because we're not ready to face up to our own inadequacies -- we bring on all the suffering and strife that exists in the world.

[Loren Booda]

God gives us the knowledge to choose freely between Godliness and ignorance.

A world without evil would be Heaven. There are some people on Earth who ignore evil but think they are in Heaven, and many others here who battle evil daily but still keep faith in Eternity.

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by mikelus
if there was no evil in the world would there be god?

Why not? When God created a perfect world (heaven) with no evil it, God existed right?

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
All I'm saying is that evil comes into existence out of a state of our being misaligned with what is singular or "neutral." And, that by going to extremes -- perhaps because we're not ready to face up to our own inadequacies -- we bring on all the suffering and strife that exists in the world.


Because we are not neural, evil comes into being? Because we choose good or evil instead of neutrality? Even if we choose neutrality ourselves it doesn't stop others from choosing evil (other who may seek to overwhelm us) - it just means that because we are neutral we tolerate 'evil'.
Anyway neutrality is not goodness.

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
God gives us the knowledge to choose freely between Godliness and ignorance.

So goes the story. How do you know?

Originally posted by Loren Booda
A world without evil would be Heaven. There are some people on Earth who ignore evil but think they are in Heaven, and many others here who battle evil daily but still keep faith in Eternity.

I don't think this answers any questions about why God tolerates evil and Satan does it? A good and powerful God would create heaven and leave it at that. What goodness has been done by creating evil? It has (supposedly) turned people away from God, caused great suffering and damned many billions. Nice one!

He created a corrupt world and a flawed and corruptable race to live in it, then obscured his own existence from the majority of the population, then punishes them for 'straying off the path'. What is 'good' or even 'sane' about that?

Imagine someone bred intelligent primates with a flawed, violent and unpredictable character and then left them to kill each other and to top things off, he watched their behavior and took the ones that broke the rules and tortured them to death. Would we consider these actions to be 'omnibenevolent' ? No (although some of the primates who were lucky enough to believe in him might sycophantically regard him as such). Would he be morally accountable for the behavior and neglect of the animals? Yes. Would he be accountable for having them tortured to death? Most certainly. Rather than 'omnibenevolent', we would probably regard him as an evil and sadistic power freak and have him put in prison for his crimes.

[Loren Booda]

Mumeishi,

What you describe is incomplete, half of a duality. If I detest poverty enough, e. g., I will be driven to eradicate it. There are at least as many examples of good as there are of evil.

Is it possible that all of us at some time doubt God and consider Satan? Might Satan represent denying our Godliness to our neighbors?

Even restricted to physics, our world can seem an infinitesimal portion of the cosmos. Most of us here endure a fraction of our lives in suffering in an uncertain universe to eventually define for ourselves and benefit others.

I agree that many consider their punishment unjust (take away my money, my American citizenship, my medicines, etc.), but the good majority of the people come back to seeking God and rejecting "Satan."

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
What you describe is incomplete, half of a duality. If I detest poverty enough, e. g., I will be driven to eradicate it. There are at least as many examples of good as there are of evil.

OK, but that's not the point. My point was that earth is an evil and corrupt place of suffering relative to what heaven is claimed to be like - and of course relative to how God could have made earth. God is responsible (in theory) for all the evil and suffering in the universe as well as the good. The question is - why did God create a situation in which evil, suffering and damnation would flourish?

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Is it possible that all of us at some time doubt God and consider Satan? Might Satan represent denying our Godliness to our neighbors?.

Not many would reject the moral path of God, while believing he exists - to do so would be to knowingly damn oneself. However there are many who doubt God because they (rightly IMO) regard the justification for belief to be insufficient.

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Even restricted to physics, our world can seem an infinitesimal portion of the cosmos. Most of us here endure a fraction of our lives in suffering in an uncertain universe to eventually define for ourselves and benefit others.

I never questioned whether it was 'worth it' for those destined for heaven (if we assume that God and heaven are real). I questioned why God allows evil and suffering and blames and tortures his (relatively) ignorant and weak creations for it.

Originally posted by Loren Booda
I agree that many consider their punishment unjust (take away my money, my American citizenship, my medicines, etc.), but the good majority of the people come back to seeking God and rejecting "Satan."

...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious.

The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it.
-Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

[Loren Booda]

My religion, Unitarian Universalism, believes that all souls go to heaven. How can I judge another's fate when I am uncertain for my own?

[redrogue]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
The question is - why did God create a situation in which evil, suffering and damnation would flourish?


Here's another way of looking at it. It's off the deep end, but here goes...

Suppose God created evil (in the form of Satan, let's say), the opposite of himself, to give us a choice. If there were only good in the world, we couldn't exercise our free will. For this to happen there would need to be an opposing force, so He created evil. But I believe mankind as a whole allows the suffering because we continue to make the *wrong* choice, resulting in negative consequences to our actions.

Free will, remember?

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
My religion, Unitarian Universalism, believes that all souls go to heaven. How can I judge another's fate when I am uncertain for my own?

Non-sequitur. You should be *certain* of your own. Don't know what judging another's fate means exactly. You'e not answered any questions. And I'm discussing more general Christian ideas - the idea that all souls go to heaven raises different questions.

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by redrogue
Here's another way of looking at it. It's off the deep end, but here goes...

Suppose God created evil (in the form of Satan, let's say), the opposite of himself, to give us a choice. If there were only good in the world, we couldn't exercise our free will. For this to happen there would need to be an opposing force, so He created evil. But I believe mankind as a whole allows the suffering because we continue to make the *wrong* choice, resulting in negative consequences to our actions.

Free will, remember?

Why would he want to give us freewill? Particularly since he created our relatively bad, weak, ignorant nature. That's just irresponsible. The result is predictable - there is nothing free about it.

Also, its not a fair game since the rules are unclear - regions without Christianity are damned (how do people who were not exposed to Christianity have a 'choice?'), as are people who (rightly) don't have a belief in god because belief (and thus even faith) is unjustified - those people cannot force themselves to believe in something they simply don't and which they don't realise they ought to have faith in.

And the 'choice' of Christianity is just one among dozens of (presumably false) religious belief systems. He has made a good job of disguising Christianity as another superstitious cult worshipping nonexistent spirits. Why would he go and do a thing like that? Why do you have faith in this tribal Hebrew god Yahweh and not in Vishnu, Odin or Ra? Why do you reject them and 'turn away' from them?

I find it hard to believe that people find this credible. Do you *really* think this makes sense? Even if there was an all-powerful, benevolent superbeing who made the universe - is this *really* what he would do? - a being who knew how to create perfect creatures like angels and a perfect place like heaven - he would create imperfect creatures and surround them with temptations and various arbitrary obstacles in the way of blind faith and allow them to suffer and inflict great harm on one another, then vastly reward those who unquestioningly accepted the Christian belief system and tortured those whith inquiring minds who asked questions and asked to be shown along with those who were never exposed to Christianity.

Do you really believe that. It just looks like a self-propagating belief system to me.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
I agree that many consider their punishment unjust (take away my money, my American citizenship, my medicines, etc.), but the good majority of the people come back to seeking God and rejecting "Satan."

would that be a proof of existance of God? because the good majority of the people come back to seeking God then he must exist....

[mikelus]

when you look at alot of the religions of the world, there are many who have a god that they believe in. Some with acual names who they believe had acually been god. Then theres been people who have lived here on earth and have had god to pass through them. Theres differences between all religions in how we view our god. But god is the ultimate reason why we go to our place of worship. God to me equals that sense of union with ones self or spirit.

[Loren Booda]

Guybrush Threepwoodwould that be a proof of existance of God? because the good majority of the people come back to seeking God then he must exist.... A proof - for the good majority of the people.

[Loren Booda]

mikelusGod to me equals that sense of union with ones self or spirit. Unique and beautiful

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
A proof - for the good majority of the people.

A good majority of the people believed the Earth was flat.
Did that make the Earth flat?
The argument by multitude does not prove anything....[zz)]

[Mumeishi]

No, I think you're out-voted on that one. [;)]

[ThOrNe]

why are sooo many ppl opposed to satan? from what i've read it's because of him that human souls get to go to heaven in the first place. But then again i don't rly think either god or satan exist but if they do, i'm left sided all the way.[!:)]

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know if historians agree with this, but I wonder if the long Persian influence on Judah after Darius let the Jews go back to Jerusalem and established it as a province of Persia, didn't infect Judaism with a taint of duality, leading to a Satan who was always
explained as not equal to God but who was always treated as if he were.

[Mumeishi]

I've read that there are no references in the early OT to Satan as an independent agency from God - he was originally an agent of God. This may help to explain why there are two contradictory accounts in one story (the story of Job I think - I'll have to check) where God commits some horrible act on mankind in one account, while it is Satan in another. The contradiction is resolved if you realise that Satan's actions are commanded by God.

[radagast]

Originally posted by mikelus
when you look at alot of the religions of the world, there are many who have a god that they believe in. Some with acual names who they believe had acually been god. Then theres been people who have lived here on earth and have had god to pass through them. Theres differences between all religions in how we view our god. But god is the ultimate reason why we go to our place of worship. God to me equals that sense of union with ones self or spirit.

In virtually all definitions of (a) god, usually the aspect of being conscious and self-aware are (at least implicitly) a part.

If what you mean by god doesn't fall into the above definition, then disregard the response that follows.

While post is accurate for many religions, all religions are not theistic. Both Buddhism and Taoism are non-theistic religions.

[seeker03]

one quick point: evil does not exist. There is only good, and lack of it. its like saying how do we know that the sun isn't cold and instead, pluto was hot? cold doesnt exist. its just a lack of heat, otherwise we could say it is 500 degrees cold, which is impossible because of absolue 0.
my reply to the main topic is: It might be because for humans, it takes someone as evil as satan to realize that we ourselves have a bit of him inside of us. once we see what the end of our dark path is, then we can repent and return to the light.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by seeker03
once we see what the end of our dark path is, then we can repent and return to the light.

the dark path has no end Luke....[6)]

[olde drunk]

what if there was no good or bad? that the world just 'is'.

did we construct a devil as a better means of understanding a god?

what if god is the universe? would we need a devil?

so, if we change our understanding of god will we remove the basis for having a devil?

personally, i think it is time for us to grow up and go beyond the myths of the ancients. all the old texts are guides for living. they can not be faultless. after all they were transcribed and translated by humans.

it is time to redefine our spiritual foundation without a 'god and/or devil'.

ah hell, there would be an economic slow down as all churches were removed from the money flow BUT we would bounce back.

[Mumeishi]

I'll drunk to that.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

[:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]
Count me in....

[einsteinian77]

Then maybe the devil is just God's doubt

[iron~orchid]

The problem with the GOD theory, is that evolutionary religion makes no provision for change or revision; unlike science, it does not provide for its own progressive correction.

However, religion as it has evolved does command respect because its followers believe it is THE TRUTH. Religion has handicapped social development in many ways, but without religion there would have been no enduring morality or ethics, no worth-while civilization.

Religion enmothered much nonreligious culture:

Sculpture originated in idol making, architecture in temple building, poetry in incantations, music in worship chants, drama in the acting for spirit guidance, and dancing in the seasonal worship festivals.

Religion and this belief in God has, however, hampered industrial activities and economic development; it has been wasteful of labor and has squandered capital; it has not always been helpful to the family; it has not adequately fostered peace and good will; it has sometimes neglected education and retarded science; it has unduly impoverished life for the pretended enrichment of death.

Evolutionary religion has been man's most expensive but incomparably effective institution without justification -- the justification being that there is, in fact, this GOD it is built around.

[Alpha 2-6]

Why is there evil?
This is the qurstion that has plauged the clergy ever since religion has been around, everyone has a theory, yet according to the Bible, the true word of God, this is the situation

God cannot destroy Satan, because God loves Satan. Let me explain.

Because Satan at once plead allegiance to God, when he was a living human, God gave him the promise of everlasting love, the devil then became a child of God. Most parents would never stop loving their children no matter what. I am sure if you would have told Hitlers' parents of what their newborn child would become, they would still love him, even though they might try and lead him away from Nietchze.

Because of this love God cannot destroy Satan, yet people can. uring the 1000 years of Satan's imprisonment, population will soar. Everyone will be in the New Jerusalem, where there is no sickness, murder or other crime, and there will be no death. Religious scholars project that the population would reach 70 billion during that time, the amount of people who have ever lived on earth currently. Once the millenium is overSatan will be realesed along with his minions, and then they will have to face the some 70 bil. strong army of God in the ultimate battle. Satan will not stand a chance because he cannot kill the angels of God. the angels will kill him and evil will be destroyed.

[olde drunk]

folks, there is nothing wrong with religion. in fact, atheism is a religion. we all need to have a religion as an anchor for our beliefs.

the biggest handicap to progress is 'organized religion'. any organization that promotes its idea as being 'the truth', immediately limits its membership's ability to clearly view the world and thought.

all of the basic books (talmud, bible, koran, etc etc) have somthing to offer. it is the organization that perpetuates ignorance and limits the value of the prophets or wisemen.

most wisemen talk about what I, the individual, can do to attain 'X'. we do not have much mention of a devil, except in a metamophic sense. temptation to do something we believe is wrong, and yet enjoyable, 'is the work of the devil'. ah, once we dare to go beyond the lines, are we in league with the devil? more importantly, what if we make a discovery that is ground breaking (for us individualy or society) did we 'sin'??

so, there ain't no good and bad; right or wrong. we are, we do, experience and learn. some of the 'wrong' decisions may delay a goal BUT they aren't 'bad'. even mistakes are necessary to evolve.

let's play! let's enjoy and see what we can do to improve the world without a satan or even a tired definition of god.

[ProtractedSilence]

I am going to omit Bible passages for now as this would be too long to read; but if there are specific questions about my post I will support with references.

God created Satan as an angel with free will, similarly with how people were created with free will. Evil entered the world because we used our free will to reject God's leadership. But because God loved us he still wanted to relate to us and provide a means for us to get back to Him. This method was through the death and resurrection of Jesus as payment for our transgressions against God. Because God loves us so much, but Satan is so opposed to God and his goodness, Satan has made it a point to devote his life to stealing away people from knowing God.

I reject the idea that there is only good, and so does the Bible. If everything is good, then murder is good, death is good, rape is good, etc. etc. This includes when these things happen to you. If everything is good then all actions by people are acceptable. I don't think this idea fits well with the way the world works, how we feel about things, or our inherent ideas about good and bad.

Now if God was really good, you might ask, why would he let evil exist? The answer is that for evil to not exist, God would have had to take away our free will. We wouldn't be left with the option to choose any longer. This is the effective death of morals, because morals are based on choosing from options a right way of acting, but if we had no choice but to love and accept God, it wouldn't really be love.

Now why would God not vanquish his enemy Satan immediately after he rebelled? God might do this because greater good could come out of letting him exist for a while than for snuffing him out immediately. God has chosen to use the fallen nature of the world, and Satan's work their to bring the best circumstances into each persons life so that they might choose to accept His love.

This is why God permitted Satan to torment Job (a righteous man) by murdering his family, slaves, livestock, taking away his friends and giving him boils on his skin. Through this experience Job realized that his righteous actions didn't mean that he deserved a reward - we are all flawed compared to God's standard and deserve death. He was then thankful to be alive, and to have the relationship with God that he did. God blessed him with a ne bigger family, riches, livestock, etc. after Job realized how good God really was.


---------
On religion

God isn't about religion (ceremonies, rituals, etc.) but He is about relationships with people. He wants to know each one of us in a deep personal way, instead of by formula or ritual, etc. Imagine that every time you saw a coworker or classmate throughout the day you said "Gee Bob, nice to see you again, its beautiful outside, talk to you later." You might see Bob 5 times a day and you would recite this to him each time. This is no basis for relating to someone.

People desire to relate to God through religious observances because it is easier to exclude God from our lives, except for doing a little dance or sitting in a pew every day or week or twice a year, etc. People doing these things feel good, while the don't really include or care about God at all.

-------
On Truth

The Bible claims to be the revealed word of God. Because its coming from God, it is the truth....there is no need for it evolve because it is already coming from the perfect creator God of the universe.

It is true that it was recorded by humans, but the Bible says that God's spirit (part of Himself) was living inside them and telling them what to write. I wouldn't take this as singular proof however. The Jews had a practice when copying the words of the prophets (Torah, OT, whatever you would like to call it) where they would copy the whole book down and then count from both the front and the back of the text for the middle letter. If this was off by even one character, they would burn the whole manuscript and start over, so that there was no chance of a mistake. This accuracy was also confirmed with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Before discovery, the oldest OT manuscripts were from 980 A.D. These came from a different source and from 250 B.C. Once they were translated it was found that the two copies were 95% identical, and that the other 5% was in variation in spelling and some obvious slips of the pen.

The manuscripts from the NT come from within 30 years of the events they describe, close enough that if they were wrong, the real individuals who lived during the events could say, "hey, that's not right." Additionally, the modern Bible contains only books confirmed to be written by people who had seen Christ resurrected, the Apostles, those who were commissioned by Jesus to remember what they had seen and tesitfy about it with the power of the Holy Spirit.

There is a change in the covenant God has with people between the Jews and after Christ's death, but this was predicted throughout the prophecy of the OT. Religion wasn't evolving, it was following a plan to provide redemption to people's sin.

[olde drunk]

please put the bible aside. think for youself. IF, logically, you were god, what would you gain by having a human race??

after many years of pondering this question, IMHO, that gestalt needed experience. therefore, s/he/it enpowered us with freewill. so, within freewill we can do anything. doing anything isn't good or bad; it just is (s/he/it gains, expands regardless of what we do).

if you get stuck with what others have said or written you will be at the mercy of those ideas. when you seek and develop your own philosophy you will be truly free. even wrong thoughts, ideas and action expand s/he/it. you will glory in the grace of your just being. only problem is, are you willing to accept the responsibility of thinking for yourself???

once you choose this road, you are totally responsible for enjoying the consequences of ALL that you think, say and do. not everyone is willing to venture into such deep waters. only confidence in self will provide the courage.

peace,

[olde drunk]

oh yeah, my god inspires what i write. your god inspires what you write. do you write what you believe or what you were told is safe to believe.

you will pass on the word of god when you have explored your inner thoughts and ideas, AND then report your findings.

as i said, even if they(your words) might be a mistake, you and god will gain wisdom and/or experience which leads to an expanded universe.

peace,

[ProtractedSilence]

if I am thinking for myself, can't I choose not only to come with my own arguments but also to choose arguments that have already been made? If everything I write or say is limited because it has to be original and different from everything ever said or written before I don't really have the ability to choose or think freely do I?

I don't claim that God is writing through me. It is possible, but I don't know that. I think if you take an honest look at yourself you will see that God is not writing through you either. Are your words really what the creator of the universe would say? Are you so confident in your understanding of God that you have everything figured out about life....and this is why you are saying that your writing is inspired? I think it is far more likely that you have made some stuff up that makes you feel good, but when you honestly look at yourself you see that you are really ignoring the things about life that bother you, especially death...and so you write out these words hoping that when you write them you will see some explanation from them that is comforting for you.

I have already tried accepting the full consequences of what I think, say, and do. And you know what, it sucks! If the things that happen to me are truly all the result of my actions, thoughts, words....then I am hopelessly screwed, because even when I seem to be doing things "right" bad circumstances come to and mess me up. Why did these things happen?

God says that he is going to judge everyone in the world during the end times. There are three responses people are going to give Him when he asks, "Why should you get to go to heaven?"

1) "I don't deserve to go, but Jesus has paid for my sins and covered them from your sight." Jesus is going to testify for us on our behalf then and we will go to heaven.

2) "I don't derve to go to heaven, I was wicked."

3) "Well, I was a good person. I tried to help people and didn't murder anyone, etc etc." To which God will retort, "But were you perfect? If you are not perfect, and did not accept the path I had laid out to pay for sins, then you cannot enter into my presence."

[Guybrush Threepwood]

let me rephrase that question a bit .... "what's in heaven that I should go to?"

[olde drunk]

if I am thinking for myself, can't I choose not only to come with my own arguments but also to choose arguments that have already been made? If everything I write or say is limited because it has to be original and different from everything ever said or written before I don't really have the ability to choose or think freely do I?

olde drunk- needless to say, i have read and studied many sources. when i make a statement it is mine. i am the authority. it may be a distillate of bible, mitchner, castenada, cayce et al, but it is my current belief. i do not need to quote anyone because if i am shown a better view, i will change my belief. i can't change what jesus or god said, so i am limited in what i can learn.

I don't claim that God is writing through me. It is possible, but I don't know that. I think if you take an honest look at yourself you will see that God is not writing through you either. Are your words really what the creator of the universe would say? Are you so confident in your understanding of God that you have everything figured out about life....and this is why you are saying that your writing is inspired? I think it is far more likely that you have made some stuff up that makes you feel good, but when you honestly look at yourself you see that you are really ignoring the things about life that bother you, especially death...and so you write out these words hoping that when you write them you will see some explanation from them that is comforting for you.


olde drunk - if god, whatever, wasn't within me i'd be dead. so when i interact with anyone i want to hear what they and their inner god have to say. i love being wrong. it helps me grow. my god encourages me to make mistakes. the biggest gains in my life were the result of my misunderstanding and impetuous acts.


I have already tried accepting the full consequences of what I think, say, and do. And you know what, it sucks! If the things that happen to me are truly all the result of my actions, thoughts, words....then I am hopelessly screwed, because even when I seem to be doing things "right" bad circumstances come to and mess me up. Why did these things happen?


olde drunk - i bet part of what you did was follow someone, something else's ideas of what you should've done. now, accept the fact that you screwed you(because you did) regardless of the dynamics. as i said above, your unconcious self wanted the "bad things" to happen so that you would be motivated to move on to bigger and better things.


God says that he is going to judge everyone in the world during the end times. There are three responses people are going to give Him when he asks, "Why should you get to go to heaven?"

1) "I don't deserve to go, but Jesus has paid for my sins and covered them from your sight." Jesus is going to testify for us on our behalf then and we will go to heaven.

2) "I don't derve to go to heaven, I was wicked."

3) "Well, I was a good person. I tried to help people and didn't murder anyone, etc etc." To which God will retort, "But were you perfect? If you are not perfect, and did not accept the path I had laid out to pay for sins, then you cannot enter into my presence."

Screw god, jesus and the white horses they rode in on! THERE AIN'T NO HEAVEN!

careful now, think. picture 'heaven' take a nice long time to envision all the food, women, etc you can eat. wait, think--------

now, how long before you get bored?????????

we do not need to be saved. there is no payment for sins or karma. we make a mistake and we trigger a negative life thread that motivates us to seek a solution. in the seeking - we grow and expand!!! the unknown of the universe is what drives our desires. what is beyond this world??? 69 virgins???? gimme a break. we don't really know and that's the wonder of it, exploring the unknown reaches of ourselves and the universe.

be back tonight, gotta go get son from college for the holiday.

peace,

[ProtractedSilence]

First, If you would like me to read your comments, could you please use a non-italicized serif font?

The Bible's picture of heaven (Revelation 20, etc.) is that God is going to remake the world and make a New Jerusalem. Those who have a relationship with God before their death will live there in the presence of God. There is going to be work to do, and people to run the city, etc. The difference is going to be 1) God will be there in direct contact with us. 2) The world won't be filled with result of the fall of man; i.e. pain, hunger, anger, malice, etc. Everyone is going to relating to each other on a deep level the way married people are intended to interact here. It's going to be an exciting life of living with God, building relationships, doing satisfying work, and being genuinely useful.

olde drunk - You are no authority. You are not even an authority on why you work the way you do. You cannot say why you were created ,or how, or why you do the things you do. There is only one authority that knows those answers, God.

God and us are seperate, there is no need for you to be physically dead because you are seperate from God. But you are currently and will continue to be spiritually dead without him.

I agree with you about being wrong. I don't love it, the feeling sucks, but it does help you grow a lot more than being right oftentimes. Hoever, the one thing I don't want to be wrong about is in my relationship with God. Because the stakes are too high for being wrong. I only believe what I do because I think it is the truth, and if I found evidence to say something else I would stop being a Christian. I would want to know what is the answer, as well as escape the suffering that Christians experience (if indeed Christianity were false). I would want to reorient my values to seek after as much money, fame, and power as possible because that's what American culture says is the answer right? Not just to go along with the crowd, but those things are "fun" aren't they.

But I think these things are not fulfilling in the end. I don;t think they lead anywhere. I see famous, rich, powerful movie stars that are miserable in marriages, addicted to drugs, in and out of prison, and hopelessly confused about life. I see people putting themselves through pain and torture of broken relationship after relationship in search of sexual satisfaction. The Bible says in Psalm 14:12 "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." I think this worldy wisdom is exactly what it is talking about.

I never followed someone for those 20 years. I grew up never having gone to church of any kind. I felt like there was something missing. I searched for it in books of many religions. I did not find it. Later God worked situations in my life to show me that He was there, did love me, had saved me from death, and wanted to relate to me. It was my own choice, based on evidence and experience.

Thanks for talking civilly with me olde drunk. I hope that you have a good weekend with your family.

[olde drunk]

sorry about the fonts. doing a quickie here so it maybe compact. OK. I know where you're at. i remember that feeling of grace when you find god. it is special. i won't rain on your parade.
may i suggest that when this too, starts to feel like god let you down 'the why me' type thing, that you renew your exploration or search. god is within all of us, which is why i am my authority and i do not need to be saved.
this is the new jerusalem, i am working with god.to make a better world. after this life i will move on to our next goal. all negatives in my life, I CHOOSE. they were not foisted on me by any god or higher power.

i am not the devil. there is no devil. those ideas are metaphors; most bible stories are.

peace,

[ProtractedSilence]

The stories in the Bible don't claim to be metaphors, but they do claim to be truth. For example, the Gospels say they are testimony to what "they have seen and heard"

usually when I feel like "God let me down," it is because I have become completely self absorbed in my thoughts, and forgotten what he has already done for me.

I'm glad that you are working for a better world, so am I. I just disagree that you choose the neagtives. You can decided to respond poorly to negatives, but people don't choose their parents dying, cripling diseases, hunger, relationship turmoil, etc.

I know you aren't the devil. But I do know he exists, and I have seen him try to screw things up actively in my life and in others. If there is personal messaging or something on this website (I'm new), or just email I will give you a good example, its just a little too personal to throw out on the internet.

nice chatting

[olde drunk]

logically, why would any god "INFLICT" misery on any soul???

sins of our parents?

sins of mankind? why? i didn't do anything!

BUT if i choose to be born under miserable cricumstances--- now it makes sense. I WANT to learn a new lesson from a miserable beginning.

listening to those who have witnessed anything is hearsay. actually it should be called heresey. they pass on their message as the word of god.

i found it easier to accept broader concepts when i saw 'god' as an energy source and no an idealized 'father' figure.

being all loving and just s/he/it would not impose suffering on an innocent soul.

that would be grossly unfair.

peace,

[ProtractedSilence]

olde drunk, I don't think you thought about the implications of the alternative you present.

Look at the situation this way:

God creates man with free will. Man chooses to use his free will to reject God and what God says is good, both in the absolute sense and what is good for people coming from their designer. We chose the misery, but God had to accept that as a possibility if he wanted to create beings that were truly free to love. If we can only do good things, then we don’t have a choice anymore, and we are forced into action.

So the Bible says that Adam and Eve chose to reject God’s leadership, and because of their choice, evil entered the world. Because of their choice, all of their descendents had this characteristic of wanting to decide right and wrong for themselves instead of taking God’s word for it. It is the natural state of people to want to do this. Every person starts out in life alienated from God like this, and that is what each of us have minimally done against God. But more than that, each of us does act in evil ways. Even if we do not kill, commit adultery, or steal; we do hate, lust, and are selfish. The second category is just as bad as the first, because in your mind you have already objectified other people, or murder the person with your heart. And because of these bad things inside of us, we are alienated from a perfect God that cannot associate with us or else he becomes imperfect.

Now what punishment do we deserve? Well, since God is the creator of all things, he is the righteous judge of all things. His scale is not “do your good things outweigh the bad?”, but it is instead, “are you perfect?” Everyone must answer in honesty, “No.” So what is the punishment for not being perfect, because of our choices to reject God? It is spiritual (and the less important physical) death (separation from God), he warned Adam and Eve that it would be so. This may seem harsh, but we have committed the greatest crime possible, we have rebelled against our loving creator without reason. An analogy might be if you’re a parent, and you do a good job raising your kids. You love them, and discipline them only for their own good. You do not spoil them, and they are well-adjusted socially. You make sacrifices for them from yourself. One day they come to you and say, “I hate you, I want nothing to do with you, leave us alone.” for no reason. You would be upset wouldn’t you? Is that what you deserve as a parent? Is there any reason to explain it? There would be separation between you until they decide to stop hating. This is how we have treated God.

So my answer then is, there are NO innocent souls. We have all rebelled against God, both in thought and action. For God to be just he must judge our goodness, otherwise he must let everyone into a relationship despite what they have done. Hitler and Mother Theresa both get a “Good Job!” and a gold star from God.

This seems like a terrible predicament with no escape, but God wanted a relationship with us badly enough that he provided a way for the debt we owe to be paid. He sent His son down here to live as a person and make payment for us. Because He was human, He could pay for humanities sin. Because he was God, He as a single person could pay for all of the sins past, present and future of the entire human race. Now the escape from our debt is simple, because Jesus has already paid for the sins. Each individual can make the personal choice to ask God to have Jesus’ death to pay for their sins. Just asking this restores a direct relationship with God once again, and he blesses each person in many ways, including putting a piece of Himself, the Holy Spirit, inside of you to live in you and help you communicate with God.

[olde drunk]

we are as perfect as we can be, in each moment of our lives. we are doing exactly what we are supposed to be doing. not because we were told to do this or that, but because we choose to.

all souls are innocent and good. how could god punish you for what adam and eve did? that is unjust. my children were born out of love and they did rebel, one almost destroyed our home. i still love her as much as when at 4-5 she would run upstairs yelling 'I hate you'. a loving parent knows it isn't true. a loving parent allows for mistakes.

a loving parent would not punish a child for an alleged 'sin' committed by their long ago grandparents (adam and eve).

a loving god with infinite wisdom and justice can not be a contradiction. what if the government decided to punish your children because you cheated on yur taxes?? or because you committed crimes of treason?

we are all good and worthy. no one is greater or lesser. christ was an enlightened teacher. IMHO, his words were for that era. it is time to embrace all teachings and not deify christ. i never committed a sin needing salvation.

peace,

[Lorentz]

Now what punishment do we deserve? Well, since God is the creator of all things, he is the righteous judge of all things. His scale is not “do your good things outweigh the bad?”, but it is instead, “are you perfect?” Everyone must answer in honesty, “No.” So what is the punishment for not being perfect,


So what you're saying is that we aren't perfect and we have to get punished for that?

Didn't God make us unperfect in the first place?

[Lorentz]

The stories in the Bible don't claim to be metaphors, but they do claim to be truth. For example, the Gospels say they are testimony to what "they have seen and heard"


Saying that to me would mean I will take you less seriously. Because there's no way you could convince me those stories truly happened. If they were true then we wouldn't have the discussion about a God, because it would be clear to us then. Having said that I can see why you believe... if you believe the stories to be true, why wouldn't you believe in that same God?

Did you question the stories? What did you come up with?

[ProtractedSilence]

Olde drunk,

I really disagree with your comment that we are each as perfect as we can be. If we are all perfect then how do you explain Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or just the neighborhood murderer? I think that some of these type of actions are influenced by environment, but people still make choices to act. That means they are responsible for their actions because they chose to do them. If one of my friends talks badly about me to someone else I have at least two choices: 1) start talking bad about them, 2) Ask them why they did it and tell them that it hurt. Both are not “perfect choices”, one seeks to hurt while the other to heal.

It is a valid concern to wonder about people who never heard about Jesus. Here is an excerpt from a webpage that describes some of the issues involved:

1. Will God condemn all those who have never heard the Gospel?
While the Bible insists that all people are saved only through Jesus Christ, it does not say that people can only be saved if they hear about Jesus Christ.
(C.S. Lewis) " . . . God has not told us what his arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no person can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him." (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Touchstone, 1996), p. 65.)
• The Bible clearly teaches that God is just. Psalm 89:14 says, "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you."
In Genesis 18:25, Abraham rightly asserts "Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
There are many implications of justice, but one of them is that one is held responsible only for information which he has received—not for information which he has not received. Paul upholds this principle with regard to sin in Romans 4:15 when he says, " . . . where there is no law there is no transgression."
• The Bible also teaches that God gives a significant amount of revelation about himself to the person "without the Bible. " Paul declares in Romans 1:18-20 that God has "made it evident" to such people not only that he exists, but also that he has certain attributes: namely, tremendous power and creative intelligence. These attributes have been revealed "through what has been made"—through the order of the external universe.
Paul says in Romans 2:14,15 that people without access to special revelation ("the Gentiles who do not have the Law") also know that God is a morally righteous Being. They know this because of the moral conscience, which he has instilled in each person. These passages make two important points.
First: The amount of light is considerable. God reveals to the unevangelized that he is powerful, personal (because he is intelligent and righteous). Man's conscience also convicts him that he has violated God's righteous character (Romans 2:15). Responding to this light properly would mean humbly coming before God asking for mercy. Thus, though the means of man's forgiveness is not revealed through general revelation, the need for it is revealed.
Second: The point of Paul's argument in Romans 1 and 2 is that these people have been given enough light to be justly condemned. But it would seem to follow (because of God's justice) that this would also be enough light to be saved-if people respond to it properly.
Another biblical fact is relevant to this question. Old Testament believers were saved by their faith before the Jesus came. Hebrews 11 lists many Old Testament figures who fit this description. Old Testament Jews had access to special revelation, but they had no clear understanding of God's plan of salvation, because the fact that the Messiah must die for our forgiveness was not clearly revealed (Luke 24:44-47; 1 Peter 1:10-12). Furthermore, some of the Old Testament people who were saved (like Melchizedek and Job) had little or no access to the special revelation to Abraham.
Another possibility is that God will judge based on his knowledge of how people would have responded had they heard the message.
Conclusion: If the "person without the Bible" responds properly, (as defined above) to the light God has given him, he would be saved by grace through faith by asking God for mercy. He will be saved only through the death of Christ, because "no man comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). In this way, the unevangelized person today is much like the Jew before the time of Christ: he is justified before God by responding in faith to the light, which he has. (For an extensive discussion see Donald Richardson. Eternity in Their Hearts.)
Two important qualifications need to be mentioned at this point.
Qualification #1: Does this mean any unevangelized person who is a devout follower of his religion will be saved?
By no means. Most world religions are animistic, polytheistic, or pantheistic. But Romans 1 teaches that the truly open person will recognize that there is one God who is intelligent and personal, and that worshipping other god(s) is therefore an act of willful rebellion. Again, virtually all world religions teach a "works" approach to the deity—that the acceptance of the deity is attained by human effort through good works and/or ritual observance. But Romans 2:14,15 teaches that humans instinctively know that they are morally guilty before God and therefore have no claim on God's acceptance based on their own effort (works or ritual). Therefore, those who respond to God's general revelation by casting themselves on his mercy will be at odds with crucial elements in their native religious setting. Missionaries have reported many such people who responded quickly to their message of the one true God and his way of salvation.

[ProtractedSilence]

Part II:

Qualification #2: If people can be saved apart from hearing the gospel, is evangelism and missions necessary?
• This question, if answered "no", would render Christ's commission to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19) pointless. The answer is "yes" because there is evidently a general correspondence between the amount of light given and the number of people who repent and are saved.
• Jesus teaches this principle in Matthew 11:20-24. He says that Tyre, Sidon and Sodom would have repented if they had received the light that Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida had received.
• This principle is also readily observed in history. While probably some Africans responded properly to the light of general revelation and were thus saved, clearly they were a small minority in unevangelized Africa judging by the paganism which pervaded Africa in the mid 1800's. It is no coincidence that today, after 150 years of missionary activity, almost 50% of Black Africans are evangelical Christians. Therefore, the number of people who get saved through general revelation is probably very small, and this fact preserves the strategic importance of Jesus' mission mandate.
Note: Furthermore, people who get saved by responding to general revelation have fewer spiritual resources available to them than individuals who hear and respond to the gospel. They would be like the "disciples" that Paul met in Acts 19:1-6. These men were evidently saved, but did not receive the Holy Spirit until Paul explained the gospel to them. The gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, as well as the other New Covenant ministries of the Holy Spirit, may be given only to those who have heard and responded to the message of salvation through Jesus Christ.
2. Is there justice in God's judgment?
We think, "It just doesn't seem fair for God to judge people and sentence them to hell." I don't like the idea, and neither does God (Eze. 18:23,32)—but consider these points:
• Can we trust our ability to judge what is fair for ourselves?
People tend to think that what they do is not very bad and does not deserve much punishment. Most prisoners believe that they are sentenced too severely. Because of our imperfect criminal justice system, some of them probably are—but it is highly unlikely that most of them are. Children demonstrate that this is an inborn attitude. This is why we don't let children or criminals choose their own punishments; they tend to go too soft on themselves. But God's judgment is perfect. He knows all the factors, every mitigating circumstance—and on that day he will demonstrate that he has been absolutely fair in his judgment.
• Furthermore, the alternative to this—universalism—is definitely not fair.
Is it fair for people to never be called to account for their actions? Is it fair that wicked people and not the righteous God have the last word on evil (STALIN: safe to the end, clenched fist at the end)? Is it fair for repentant people to spend eternity with an unrepentant STALIN? Is it fair for God to allow this world to go on for so long if he will send everyone to heaven? If people can't make a decision about where to spend eternity during this life, what is the point? If there is no ultimate accountability for our lives, then what is the difference between heaven and hell?
• Finally, this objection assumes that we have a proper moral standard by which to evaluate whether God's judgment is fair or unfair.
Most Americans believe that if there is a hell, only really bad people will go there. But there is a fatal flaw in this belief. How bad is bad enough? If Mother Theresa is good enough to go to heaven, and if Stalin is bad enough to go to hell, should we draw the line exactly halfway between them? What if you were one sin on Stalin's side of that line (that bad thought you had about your mother when you were ten years old)? Is this fair? No matter where you draw the line in this scenario, you always have the same dilemma. The Bible rejects this answer for one simple reason: it draws the line at God's moral perfection (Jas. 2:10; Matt. 5:48; Rom. 11:32 For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all.). It makes perfect sense, and God is certainly within his rights to draw it here. However, it is really bad news because it means all of us—Stalin, Mother Theresa, you, me—are under God's judgment. But the good news is that God has offered to take the rap for all of us. He says he has come in the Person of Jesus to bear God's judgment for us on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21). Now the way is open for all of us to escape God's judgment—if we put our trust in his payment. That's news you won't find anywhere but in Christianity.

[ProtractedSilence]

Also, we are not punished because of ancestors mistake, we are punished because we personal choose to act without God. THis is a result of our character being changed because of the actions of others, but it is an inherent charactersitic of people to turn away from God.

[ProtractedSilence]

Lorentz,

Sorry to take a long time to respond. My computer won’t let me see these forums from home for some reason. To answer your questions:

1) God made us perfect, but he wanted to make creatures that had free will. Part of giving a being free will is to accept the possibility that they may choose against their creator.
2) I guess I would ask what stories you specifically don’t believe? Do you believe any of it is true (the Bible)? It will affect where I start explaining. I believe in fully examining any text, including the Bible. This includes looking at the context for a verse, passage, or book, looking at the culture of the time, seeing who the text was written to, and who it was written by. And also how the culture of the day viewed the text.

Applying these things to the Bible it can be seen that the works are self-consistent and it claims to be the description of true events – and God’s words. The people of the day thought it was true, and archaelogical evidence has supported most everything that archaelogists have studied about Biblical places.

You would be surprised, some people believe the stories and still don’t believe in God. I don’t think that makes much sense either though.

I was an athiest for the first 20 years of my life. I was downright hostile towards them. I questioned the validity of the stories a lot. A number of things happened to get me to investigate what the Bible says (if you like I will go more into detail here), but after a while, I wanted to believe in the God of the Bible. But I thought it was just emotions saying that, and that the facts didn’t back it up. So I asked my friend for a copy of “A Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. This guy is a Harvard Law graduate who went out to prove how fake Jesus was. In the process of interviewing people and examining the evidence, he became a Christian. The book is a description of the interviews and the evidence he found for the questions he had. I got half way through this book and decided that the facts really were there for the stories about Jesus.

Some of the things that were impactful to me, about the validity of the stories:

1) There are more than 1000 complete manuscripts of the new testament that we have written between 120-300 A.D. (which is within 30 years of some of the events they describe, so that people still alive could correct them). There are 5000 full manuscripts plus fragments from the same period. They are all virtually identical, and that is what is used as the basis for the modern translation of the Bible (NASB, NIV, NRSV) – straight from Greek to English. In contrast, the oldest copy in existence of The Illiad is 2000 years after when it was written, and there are just two copies of that age. In fact, of all historical documents, it is the most verifiable and accurate because of the number of independent copies that exist and check with one another, and the closeness of the documents to when the events happened.
2) The disciples all believed what they had written and believed about Jesus to be true, because they were willing to die for it when just telling the Roman officials, “I didn’t see Christ resurrected" would have gotten them freedom (normally, confessions to the Romans only ensured a quick death).
3) 100 years ago archaeologists were certain that the Biblical account of geography (of towns and such) was completely fabricated. An example is in the accuracy of Luke, which originally considered to be completely false. The renowned Sir William Ramsey (England) was at the top of his field (in the world) and set out to prove just how false Luke was by examining the sites he records in that Gospel. After years of study in the Middle East, Ramsey’s position on Luke had changed. He eventually classified “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14) as one of “the very greatest of historians” who ever lived (Luke the Physician, p. 222). He found that in making reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands he (Luke) made no mistakes!"

There are more, but these are just a few of the things I found when I began to really research the authenticity of these stories.

[olde drunk]

Also, we are not punished because of ancestors mistake, we are punished because we personal choose to act without God. THis is a result of our character being changed because of the actions of others, but it is an inherent charactersitic of people to turn away from God.
how in god's name did i act without god??? i was born innocent but i am punished for the acts of others???

nah, you were born innocent and accepted the propaganda that you must accept god's will when something went wrong. you had to deserve it, he is most just.

honest injun, i went through 12 years of catholic education (including altarboy) and understand the process. it has taken over 40 years to undo their ideas. unfortunately, there were 35 years of booze, 2 marriages and a lot of thinking to understand that i did it all to myself. i include the choice of when, where and how i was born. to accept a concept you must apply it to all logical events.

once i accepted full responsiblity for my reality/experience, i understood so much more. my god, (whoever, whatever s/he/it is), is there to help, not judge. we can do no wrong.

peace & love,

[ProtractedSilence]

I will ask you again (don't remember if it was in this thread or others); If we can do no wrong, how do you explain the Holocaust, Cambodia, Russia under Stalin, mass murderes like Ted Bundy, and just average theivery and crime?

Do you think that these people acting rightly?

[olde drunk]

I will ask you again (don't remember if it was in this thread or others); If we can do no wrong, how do you explain the Holocaust, Cambodia, Russia under Stalin, mass murderes like Ted Bundy, and just average theivery and crime?

Do you think that these people acting rightly?

i am not sure you're going to like this, so hang on!!!!

there are no victims. now, slow down! i did not say they asked to be harmed or injured. this is complicated so try to feel the value of this concept because it goes against most of what we believe happens day to day.

1. we, each of us, create or co-create our reality. (we won't go into how. QM?)

2. there is no right or wrong, simply 'experience' to expand our own and god's consciousness.

3. our 'present' is the focus of past and future proablity threads. we are living a probabilty thread based on our individual desired goal.

4. let's deal with hitler - probably the biggest of the baddest--

5. he came to power thru the spiritual need of, or lack of leadership. while we are all creating our individual reality, we also add our energy to the mass reality of our neighborhood, community, state, country, world.

6. it is important to realize that through the mass reality we are helping our fellow man accomplish his goals and vice-versa.

7. back to adolph, he was well intentioned and did a lot of good for germany, before he got carried away.

8. within the group dynamics we have a race that believes that it is better to 'turn the other cheek', we have another group that believes that they are the master race. (lol, chosen people meets chosen race). I AM NOT MAKING LITE OF THIS HISTORY.

9. the two groups AGREED to play out the holocaust for the growth of civilization. they did not ask to be victim and purpetrator, circumstances of their individual goals put them in line to agree to these roles for the progress of mankind.

10. hopefully we will always remeber the holocaust and be able to avert another.

11. it is important to understand that what we see as victims, did not ask to be harmed or injured. they agreeded to the experience for their individual reason, some for the betterment of mankind, some to satisfy a desire to experience an unusual death.

i am not saying that this is EXACTLY how it happens, i am not that in tune with the universe. but, after years and years of thought, this concept fills all the holes i find/found in traditional thinking.