Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
After reading through the thread on Christianity and why one believes, I have to state...it's why I incapable of ever doing such in my life. There are some grossly blatant incorrect things about evolution as well. Evolution is not a game of chance like in Monopoly or Blackjack. After shooting down some misconceptions about evolution, we'll talk about GOD strictly from a philosophical sense then dismantle Christianity.

The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747. Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favors mutations that provide some advantage. And the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn't. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions.

The phrase "survival of fittest" is widely misunderstood!!
Many wrongly assume it means that evolution always increases the chances of a species surviving.Evolution sometimes results in individuals or populations becoming less fit and may occasionally even lead to extinction.

There are several ways in which evolution can reduce the overall fitness of individuals or of populations. For starters, natural selection can take place at different levels ? genes, individuals, groups ? and what promotes the survival of a gene does not necessarily increase the fitness of the individuals carrying it, or of groups of these individuals.

(See sickle cell trait vs sickle cell anemia...one reduces malaria, the other devastating completely)

Now let's talk about Christianity...you first have to talk about it's origins.

When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a MYTH.

When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a MYTH.

In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a MYTH.

When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth. When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal , we understand that as a MYTH.

When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a MYTH.

So how come when Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy,turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades?er, I mean Hell?for the bad folks...HOW COMES THAT'S NOT A MYTH???
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
God Is Amoral

God is amoral, folks. Hate to break it you (okay, not really) but yes your GOD completely amoral in nature...assuming for a moment he does in fact even exist.

All religions rest popularly as they do on Pascal's wager, which states as follows:

1)You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.

2)You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore negligible.

3)You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

4)You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.

Basically better to believe to be safe, rather than not believe and be sorry. This is nothing more than religion through fear of an eternal punishment ultimately which has never been empirically proven to exist. But,such cannot be considered a true path to "GOD" because if one believes all "GOD" is pure goodness it is illogical. Which I shall get into later...

But let us look at an even more at the communication of the so called "scriptures" themselves, Thomas Paine makes a rather excellent point on this notion in dealing with the language.

"Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. Human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information, and therefore it is not the means that God would use in manifesting himself universally to man.

It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and, in this case, it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How, then, is it that those people pretend to reject reason?"--Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part I Sec VII

God cannot be perfect for a variety of reasons. Think about it, a perfect being has cannot have desires. It is already perfect, already content. Perfection cannot long for anything other than perfection. A perfect being is essentially complete in every possible aspect, and in every measurable way.

If you believe the "Creation Story" of Genesis in the Bible, it already negates the idea that God is perfect. Why would a perfect being create something? After all, it was already perfect in its existence by itself, already was it not? The need to create requires that there is something missing, that it is incomplete, therefore imperfect especially from a being that is supposed to be perfect.

If you believe God created the universe then you have to admit that there was no sun, moon, stars, galaxy, concept of time..nothing but the entity of perfection called God alone. So out of what purpose would God create a universe? We'll come back to that one later as well.

You are lead to the argument that that everything created from God must be perfect, because God is perfect, so therefore mankind has to be perfect...and if this is the case why do the revealed religions constantly fall in line of mankind is not perfect...the concept of original sin could not exist, sin could not exist, good and evil can only have one value, that being goodness and perfection.

But the universe is not perfect, evil does exist, and many religions believe sins or acts against God can occur and do in fact exist.

Then the other argument you run into is that GOD created humans out of his compassion and love. God's need to create in of itself is proof God is imperfect once again. If you say God created spontaneously that is no reason at all, it means the universe and everything in it came into being with a reason, without a purpose. And it would mean God is not loving at all.

God as well cannot have free will either or be omniscient. If God is omniscient he cannot make any other choices at all. He can only make one choice, and then it is not really choice just a matter of programming. If you know all the choices you will make, you cannot change them. It would suggest GOD was wrong if he has the ability to change them. So no wiggle room whatsoever, no room to change, because after all God is supposedly perfect and can see the future. God not only has to make the best choices, he can only make choices that are perfectly good.

God cannot make decisions that are less than perfectly good. God has only one choice, the absolute best moral choice. Since God does not have free will, he cannot make any other choices but this one. In order for God to be able to exercise free will, for him to do this has to mean he can make a wrong choice, which means otherwise he is imperfect and has to contemplate the choice. Therefore, God being only allowed to make one the utmost choice in essence has to amoral.

If God however does have free will, God as well must also be imperfect. If God is infact imperfect then and only then is it possible for God to choose anything less than a perfection action. If God is not imperfect, of course than God cannot do anything that is imperfect. So logically, God cannot have free will.

God has to be amoral as well. Why?

Because since God must make only the most moral optimum choice, he has no free will. As well he is not omniscient because every choice he was going to make was perfect and already decided. So God would have to be amoral by default.

Either what is right or wrong is simply because God says so or God says what is right or wrong because it is, simply. God's command for this to be right would have to set up a standard to which there is no moral reasoning for following, and then this only becomes followed out of fear. Then on the other hand God's command is irrelevant to ethics and that ethics have nothing to do with religion and never flowed from it by divine inspiration.

(This would negate Moses, and the bible as a foundation for laws, other than symbolism.)

Then how do you explain evil?

"The free will justification for evil does not work. Free will does not require the existence of evil or suffering. Heaven is a place where there is free will, and no suffering. There is a lot of suffering and evil that are not the result of free will, such as natural disasters, so free will could not actually account for all suffering, only some of it. Also, the free will of one person can cause suffering for another innocent person, God should not allow the moral choices of one being affect other beings as this goes against moral accountability.

It is inadequate to say merely that knowledge or experience of suffering is requirement for us to enter heaven as a justification of why suffering exists. God can give us innate knowledge of evil, rather than let us experience it directly, and if babies or the unborn go to heaven then is clear that experience of the suffering of life is not actually required, after all. If angels or god exist in heaven then it shows that it is possible for beings to be in heaven without first experiencing suffering. The experience theodicy does not work.

The Absence Theodicy is the argument that seen as "God" is "goodness", anything not good such as evil and suffering, is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every little in-between bit of all those scales.

Likewise, God created the scale of good and evil. God could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place.
 
After reading through the thread on Christianity and why one believes, I have to state...it's why I incapable of ever doing such in my life. There are some grossly blatant incorrect things about evolution as well. Evolution is not a game of chance like in Monopoly or Blackjack. After shooting down some misconceptions about evolution, we'll talk about GOD strictly from a philosophical sense then dismantle Christianity.

The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747. Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favors mutations that provide some advantage. And the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn't. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions.

The phrase "survival of fittest" is widely misunderstood!!
Many wrongly assume it means that evolution always increases the chances of a species surviving.Evolution sometimes results in individuals or populations becoming less fit and may occasionally even lead to extinction.

There are several ways in which evolution can reduce the overall fitness of individuals or of populations. For starters, natural selection can take place at different levels ? genes, individuals, groups ? and what promotes the survival of a gene does not necessarily increase the fitness of the individuals carrying it, or of groups of these individuals.

(See sickle cell trait vs sickle cell anemia...one reduces malaria, the other devastating completely)

Now let's talk about Christianity...you first have to talk about it's origins.

When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a MYTH.

When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a MYTH.

In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a MYTH.

When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth. When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a MYTH.

When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal , we understand that as a MYTH.

When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a MYTH.

So how come when Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy,turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades?er, I mean Hell?for the bad folks...HOW COMES THAT'S NOT A MYTH???

I'll speak briefly on this subject. In the religious thread, I have posted several posts on how evolution cannot have taken place based not only by biblical standards, but by scientific standards as well. If the ones who are trying to prove that evolution in fact has taken place cannot prove it, how is it then a fact? Some scientists even say it is dogma that other scientists believe in evolution, because they just don't want to believe in a creator. They cannot even reproduce the theories of evolution they have. Why? It's not a fact. It did not happen. We were all created by Jehovah. Period.

Again with these other so called Gods or sons of God. None of those other supposed sons of God were prophesied about for one. Jesus was Prophesied about three chapters into the bible (genesis 3:15) And he was prophesied about all throughout the Hebrew scriptures. All of them happened.

Now, where are the prophesies about Alexander the great before he was born? Show please? Oh I have one! In the bibles book of Daniel where the angel tells how in a nutshell his tumultuous adult life would be lived, and how he'd die suddenly. Nothing about a virgin mom! Where are the prophesies about these people you have posted?

Also one big difference is that there is ample proof that Jesus actually existed. There is no proof of such as some of the persons on your list. Hence, myth. Not hard, just common sense.


And let me ask this. When Moses killed a man in Egypt, and the Egyptians were looking for him, where was their God to help them find him, and make sure he does not escape? Lets go back a little bit further. Where were their Gods when all the Israelite first born sons were all killed cept for Moses, spared by whom? AN EGYPTIAN QUEEN of all things! Would NOT Osirus or someone step in and stop this madness? NO! THEY TOOK HIM IN! And when Jehovah told Moses to head back to Egypt and free his people, who were slaves and he returned to the place where he was once a fugitive, where was OSIRUS? When Jehovah brought the ten plagues upon Egypt? OSIRUS ANYONE? IM PRETTY SUUUUUUUURRRRREEEEEE, THEY PRAYED TO HIM! Why are the lowly Israelites protected from all the plagues, but the Egyptians all feeling the wrath, and they are IN THE SAME PLACE? OSIRUS, HELP YOUR PEOPLE PLEASE! Not only did the Israelites leave healthy, but they left with the Egyptian gold and mule! DANG OSIRUS! YOU JUST GOT PUNKED! HELP YOUR PEOPLE!! JEHOVAH, GOD OF JESUS DOES!

Point is, that those other so called Gods are not God's at all. Jehovah is. He has proven it time and again, and will do so again very shortly for all mankind to never mistake that he alone is God.
 
God is amoral, folks. Hate to break it you (okay, not really) but yes your GOD completely amoral in nature...assuming for a moment he does in fact even exist.

All religions rest popularly as they do on Pascal's wager, which states as follows:

1)You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.

2)You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore negligible.

3)You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

4)You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.

God does not intend at all for the majority of mankind to live in heaven. Why prepare the earth for human life if you just wanted those persons in heaven with you for all eternity anyways? That is purposeless, and not in the character of Jehovah. Whatever his purposes are, he fulfills them. Hell is not a fiery place of torment, that is a lie promoted through misrepresentation of the bible. Period. It is however mankind's resting place, even Jesus once had to be risen from there. And he had no faults, there was no reason for him to ever see hell since he was sinless. Unless of course hell is just a mandatory place where all dead people have to rest a bit. That makes only logical sense.


Basically better to believe to be safe, rather than not believe and be sorry.
It takes more than simple belief in God to have his approval.


But let us look at an even more at the communication of the so called "scriptures" themselves, Thomas Paine makes a rather excellent point on this notion in dealing with the language.

"Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. Human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information, and therefore it is not the means that God would use in manifesting himself universally to man.
So what this genius is stating is, that the one who makes voice box and language is not capable of making sure that all of those is any will have his word to know the truth? Yea, that explains why the bible is translated in whole or part in more than 2,300 languages and is thus available to more than 90 percent of the worlds population today. On the avg, more than a million bibles each week are distributed. Billions of copies of either the whole bible, or part of it has been produced. What book has stood the test of time like it? Has the historical and scientific accuracies it has? The fact that you cannot get rid of this book says a lot about it's author if one uses logic. If one cannot even rid the world of God's book(and they have tried), how can they stop him from fulfilling his other purposes? Clearly, there is no other book in history like the bible.

It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and, in this case, it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How, then, is it that those people pretend to reject reason?"--Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part I Sec VII

Good thing for reason! It is reasonable to acknowledge all of these wonderful creations and say hmm, there had to be a designer for all of these things. But lemme ask, reason is behind the theory of evolution?

God cannot be perfect for a variety of reasons. Think about it, a perfect being has cannot have desires. It is already perfect, already content. Perfection cannot long for anything other than perfection. A perfect being is essentially complete in every possible aspect, and in every measurable way.
Jesus was born from a virgin for the sole purpose of being made a perfect human. Yet he was not aloof. He was the most loving human to ever live. So your philosophy is shot down right there.



If you believe the "Creation Story" of Genesis in the Bible, it already negates the idea that God is perfect. Why would a perfect being create something? After all, it was already perfect in its existence by itself, already was it not? The need to create requires that there is something missing, that it is incomplete, therefore imperfect especially from a being that is supposed to be perfect.

If you believe God created the universe then you have to admit that there was no sun, moon, stars, galaxy, concept of time..nothing but the entity of perfection called God alone. So out of what purpose would God create a universe.
Again, the same with Jesus who was perfect, Love. For God to have all that power and not create even though he is self sufficient, would be selfishness. God is too loving for that. If you were perfect, would you not love yourself? Or others? Would you sit being all powerful and not create? Just be happy within yourself? likely not. So then why would God?


You are lead to the argument that that everything created from God must be perfect, because God is perfect, so therefore mankind has to be perfect...and if this is the case why do the revealed religions constantly fall in line of mankind is not perfect...the concept of original sin could not exist, sin could not exist, good and evil can only have one value, that being goodness and perfection.

But the universe is not perfect, evil does exist, and many religions believe sins or acts against God can occur and do in fact exist.
Everything that God makes is perfect of itself. Animals are perfect in themselves, stars and planets in themselves, and intelligent life form (humans and angels) in themselves. They are his boundaries to set. And with free will, sin can certainly exist. That is the only way it CAN in fact exist. Without it, it would just be a law. Robotic. God set a righteous way for life, his way. Anything in opposition is unrighteous. Satan, Adam and Eve chose to deviate from God's righteousness. And because of it, we all see the benefits of living righteous, religious OR NOT. God set the boundaries to care for the earth. We all see the benefit of being more aware of it now that mankind has ruined the earth beyond repair.

God did not make us imperfect, or ruin the earth, we chose to do it apart from him, as if we were the ones who made all things. Our fault, not his.

Then the other argument you run into is that GOD created humans out of his compassion and love. God's need to create in of itself is proof God is imperfect once again. If you say God created spontaneously that is no reason at all, it means the universe and everything in it came into being with a reason, without a purpose. And it would mean God is not loving at all.
Who said God NEEDED to create? he chose too, out of love. There is a difference between needing and choosing. And he does not create without purpose. Does not happen.

God as well cannot have free will either or be omniscient. If God is omniscient he cannot make any other choices at all. He can only make one choice, and then it is not really choice just a matter of programming. If you know all the choices you will make, you cannot change them. It would suggest GOD was wrong if he has the ability to change them. So no wiggle room whatsoever, no room to change, because after all God is supposedly perfect and can see the future. God not only has to make the best choices, he can only make choices that are perfectly good.
God can choose to do whatever he wants. It is part of being God. However, he is Holiest of all, and is the meaning of righteousness. Having the ability to do something, and actually doing something is totally different. The fact that God chooses to act wisely having all the power in the universe is a testament to his righteousness. If you had it, what would you do with it?



God cannot make decisions that are less than perfectly good. God has only one choice, the absolute best moral choice. Since God does not have free will, he cannot make any other choices but this one. In order for God to be able to exercise free will, for him to do this has to mean he can make a wrong choice, which means otherwise he is imperfect and has to contemplate the choice. Therefore, God being only allowed to make one the utmost choice in essence has to amoral.
If God however does have free will, God as well must also be imperfect. If God is infact imperfect then and only then is it possible for God to choose anything less than a perfection action. If God is not imperfect, of course than God cannot do anything that is imperfect. So logically, God cannot have free will.

Explain to me how God cannot have free will, but his intelligent creations do, and they are made in his image? Clearly Jesus exibited free will, and he was perfect, so how could the one creating him from a virgin not have free will? Jesus died without ever breaking any of Gods laws. He was tempted just like the rest of us to make wrong choices, yet he did not. So one does not have to be imperfect to be faced with choice.

For instance, while driving, if you see a sign that says one way street and you obey it 100 out of 100, even though you could run down the opposite end of the street, would contemplating going down the street actually go against your perfect record of actually obeying the law? Or would you have to actually do it for it to count? Take Adam and Eve for example. God made them and their surroundings perfect. He placed the tree in the Garden that they were forbidden to eat from. For some time after that command, they continued to live in peace and harmony with God. Why? Clearly because even though they were faced with a possible wrong choice, they did not act on making it. So while they had a choice to do wrong, it did not make them imperfect facing it. They however became imperfect when they CHOSE to do what God said not.

Having free will does not count against you being perfect. It is making the choice to do the wrong thing while being perfect that makes you imperfect.

This answers your amoral questions as well.



Then how do you explain evil?

"The free will justification for evil does not work. Free will does not require the existence of evil or suffering. Heaven is a place where there is free will, and no suffering. There is a lot of suffering and evil that are not the result of free will, such as natural disasters, so free will could not actually account for all suffering, only some of it. Also, the free will of one person can cause suffering for another innocent person, God should not allow the moral choices of one being affect other beings as this goes against moral accountability.
Allowing something, and being the cause for it is totally separate. Evil only exists because of sin and the choice of those to do evil. The sin part you cannot help, you are imperfect. But when you know what is wrong, and still do it, says that you are choosing to do the wrong thing. That is where the problem lies. You can choose to do right whether perfect or imperfect. It is much tougher imperfect because of your imperfect nature. But it is doable. Just not perfectly. God plans to fix the imperfect part very soon on humanity's part.

Now as far as heaven. You may need to read the bible more to understand the ramifications of it better. In revelations chapter 12 the bible speaks of the devil and his angels being cast out of heaven. and it says regarding those who remained loyal to God who did not get cast out " TO BE GLAD YOU WHO RESIDE IN THE HEAVENS". Why? Because the devil was allowed to remain in heaven for some time to persuade other angels that they can live apart from Gods righteous rule. This points back to the whole issue at hand of universal sovereignty. So there HAD to be suffering in spiritual sense for those who were still trying to do Gods will when they see others disobeying him. The same sorta struggle that humans on earth face. Now as far as disasters and such, the bible speaks of no such things in heaven, but suffering spiritually is still a form of suffering.

And God has only allowed all the suffering in any form to exist to prove that if all intelligent life would obey his righteous rule, there would be no suffering. He plans to fix all wrongs for the sake of those who despite all the suffering, still hope in him and do his will. Hence, respecting his side of the sovereignty issue. That is why the bible says in revelations 12:12 On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.? Those in the heavens no longer have to deal with the devil. We do.. for a short period of time...

It is inadequate to say merely that knowledge or experience of suffering is requirement for us to enter heaven as a justification of why suffering exists. God can give us innate knowledge of evil, rather than let us experience it directly, and if babies or the unborn go to heaven then is clear that experience of the suffering of life is not actually required, after all. If angels or god exist in heaven then it shows that it is possible for beings to be in heaven without first experiencing suffering. The experience theodicy does not work.
Well God tried to do that with Adam and Eve in the Garden. They did not have to suffer.. they only did when they disobeyed God. HE WARNED THEM what would happen if they disobeyed. He told them they would be evil if they ate from the tree. So they did not have to experience it to know what it would mean. They chose too out of selfishness. Clearly if he did that for humans, he did it for the angels before hand as well. But again, God will not let his purpose be thwarted by his creations. He put a plan into action to fix things right then.

Babies or unborn children will have the opportunity to live again on earth during the resurrections.. Not going to heaven. Not many are. a set number have that hope, and they are sealed.


The Absence Theodicy is the argument that seen as "God" is "goodness", anything not good such as evil and suffering, is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every little in-between bit of all those scales.

Likewise, God created the scale of good and evil. God could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place.

God is love. His intelligent creations love as well. In order to have love, you MUST have free will. Without it, you cannot love. But the issue is, if you can choose to exercise love, you can also choose not too. So God did not create evil, but evil is in direct opposition of love. But one does not have to be evil. They choose it. That much is clear starting with him. He has absolute power and no one can stop him. Yet out of love his gives us free will. We can eat bread and water to survive. But he gives us taste buds and variety to enjoy life more fully. We have a brain that allows us to never stop learning, and create from what we learn. He could have made us like we make computers...

Point is, if everyone exercised love, evil would be a thing of the past and never come up. No one is doomed to it, they choose it. Like they can choose to love as God does.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Knickfan4realz, your very long attempt to disprove Christianity is something that obviously got to you. That is what happens to many scientist that really look into the comparison between a Creator and Evolution. You do know that many scientist, who were extreme Atheist, came to the conclusion that a Creator is the only possible solution to why we live in this universe and world today. I will explain that later.

Knickfan4realz, im going to give you an argument that is very simple, it's called the Cosmological Argument that proves the Universe had a Beggining.
Start out easy...
A)Everything that had a beggining had a cause
B)The universe had a beggining so therefore it had a cause
C)The only two possibilities are that there is NO beggining or there is a beggining.

There are 5 reasons to support that their is Evidence that the Universe had a Beggining, which goes against the Athiest view.

1) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
explanation- The Universe is running out of usable energy so the Universe has a finite amount of energy. If there was NO Beggining then that energy would have run out a long time ago. The Universe overtime will have disorder and no scientist has disproven this.

2) The Universe is Expanding
explanation- if you rewind the Universe, in an Atheist view, it will go from what it is now all the way back to, NOTHING. This is a mathmatical and logical statement. So all of a sudden it went from Nothing to Something? If you say that im wrong because of Natural Law, your wrong because Natural Law cannot disprove this because Natural Law wasnt around. Aristotle once quoted "Nothing is what rocks dream about."

3) Radiation Echo
explanation- Bell Labs 1965, two scientist named Wilson and Penziest found a sound from an initial explosion and after much time the sound was still there from the orginal explosion, this disproved the Steady State Theory which was said that the Universe was eternal. Look up the Steady State Theory if you didnt know it becuase it's what Evolutionist belived and some still do. Agnostic Astronomer Robert Gastro supported that this discovery proved the Steady State Theory false.

4)Great Mass of Matter
explanation- In 1992, the Hubble Space telescope reported that it found a great mass of matter found in the Universe. An example would be like an exploding chair with the matter being a chunk of that chair. This Great mass of matter was an explanation of the Big Bang Theory. The odds of seeing that chunk of matter from the Big Bang is the same odds of a believer seeing God through a telescope.

Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow- "Scientist have pinned themselves into a corner because by using their own methods they have discovered that the universe began abruptly in an act of Creation. This traces that every living thing has been found from a product of forces they cannot discover, that there are or what i call, Supernatural forces at work which is a scientifically proven fact. And that the Biblical view seems to be the right view."

5)End of Infitine time is impossible
explanation- If you follow a Biblical timeline, you cannot traverse an infinite number of days...End of an infinite???? By definition inifinte has no end. If we're at the end of history, there must have been a beggining because today would have never gotten here.
Conclusion: Universe must have had a beggining.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Continued... and other Scientist quotes.

Continued........

If the Universe had a Beginning then it must have had a Beginner.

Two Options:
Atheist Veiw: No one created something out of nothing
Theistic View: Someone created something out of nothing

Question for you Knickfan4realz, If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing at all?

Einstein's Theory of Relativity proves that there must have been a Beginning.

Quotes from SCIENTIST that ARENT CHRISTIAN

Atheist Anthony Kenny: "Atheist must believe the matter of the Universe came from Nothing, by Nothing."

Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow from his book: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greated by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
  • God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992), p. 107. (p. 116 in the '78 edition)
Robert Geisure: Every effect has a cause and every Beginning has a Beginner.

Therefore the Universe must have a cause for it's Beginner.

Explanation of The Law of Causality (cause and effect) quotes from Robert Jastrow:

The Universe exists and is real. Atheist and agnostics not only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own being (I.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be ?contingent? because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: ?Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause? (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, ?What caused the Universe??

It is here that the law of cause and effect (also known as the law of causality) is strongly tied to the cosmological argument. Simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. Just as the law of the excluded middle is analytically true, so the law of cause and effect is analytically true as well.

Ref. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/269
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
Who are these scientists you speak of that do not agree with evolutionary fact? By all means I would love to read some of their work, and show you how huge idiots they are in the first place. Every notable scientist on planet Earth, agrees with evolutionary fact. The fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists, religious scientists are the one's most likely you are talking about..and honestly that like copying the answers of the guy in high school who got a C+, but not the guy who was getting the A.

We were not all created by Jehovah. That's not factual in of itself. You BELIEVE you were created by Jehvoah. Big differece to beliving in something because your faith requires you to do so, and another to suggest that factually mankind and all things in the universe were created by what you think is a supreme external force outside the laws of nature, physics, biology, and chemistry.

So because the other people folks thought were GOD's don't count because no one said nothing earlier? What kind of BS is that? Seriosuly. If no one would have prohpezied about Jesus...then you're telling me based on that assumption that folks today would not be walking around as Christians? People believe what they wish. Fact remains people saw Zeus, Osiris, Alexander as GODS. Jesus his very existence comes from pagan mythology...man born to a GOD and a mortal woman...roman, greek, eygptian history is filled with these..and by the way they existed millenias before Chrisitanity even came about..that's world history right there...and it's factual.

The Bible is not source proof of anything, do I really have to engage you into a discussion of why it can't be used as a source of historical fact?

There were a few prophecies about Alexander the Great being a GOD, but those came after his life. People attirbuted to him he was a GOD for all the known world that he had conquered. But he wasn't the first leader of a society to be ascribed himself as GOD's so called representative. Louis XVI, The Pope, Hitler, Stalin, Juliuis Ceasar, Nero, Caligula, Seti I, Seti II, Tut, Nerftiti....just to name a few more examples of leaders who were described and held as GODs by the common people in their society. Hell even the english had their versions...Henry VIII, Edwards VII, Victoria II..etc....you don't see a pattern here??

All the persons on that list with the exception of Vespatian, Augustus, and Alexander are/were actual persons. The rest of them just simply their GOD's at the time the people believed in, worshipped, sacrificed for, fought for, died for, believed blessed them...just like this Jesus person.

Where is this evidence Jesus was a real actual person? Because reading through the mythologies of the Greeks, Romans, and Eygptians who by they way conquered the supposed holy lands at various times in their empires respective histories...exchanged cultures, and ideals with the people's as well. Wouldn't be a logical shock if someone decided to incorporate all these stories, and powers..into their own hero. Basically, Jesus is a rip-off of other myths..and better one's too I might add..far more entertain and harmless.

It's funny the Egyptians with their vast tapestry of history, and record keeping...have no mention of this "Moses" person, or any of the plaque's that happened or anything. You would think something so huge, and big in human history..one of their scribes would have wrote this down on some kind of official stone or parchment...but no instead it only finds itself in books about fairytales like religion.

You haven't proven there is a GOD, there is a Jehovah. All you have done is sit here and expose your beliefs, as fact. No more no less.

And by the way...let's assume for a second all the bullshit your talking is true...how do you know for a fact GOD is a Christian??
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
Whatever his purposes are, he fulfills them? That's what you said. Now if that were at any point a truthful statement...then how do you know to serve him is one of the things you must fulfill without having been previously told by another person...more than likely a parent?? God's approval you say? Then what about the subject of killing in GOD's name, where is the approval on that?...

No you moron. What Thomas Paine was saying that...an intelligent all knowing all powerful being would not use human language to deliver his cosmic message. Because an already intelligent being would know human language not only changes, but also morphs, and different words have different interpretations. You see an intelligent GOD would already know shit like this to begin with, not this galactic underachiever you people would blindly follow off a cliff if the megaphone was loud enough for you to hear it. For GOD, to use human language would signify he's not that bright in the first place. Because he's not aware of human language being so changeable over the course of time. He would have too see it coming, (wait that doesn't mean that anymore, so I've got to redo my message and use these words because those words don't mean what they used to...and if people interpret them WRONG it's going to **** up my message) an intelligent GOD would know and have already seen that coming. So using human language more or less is the sign of a stupid GOD. Also that does not explain why the bible is translated and you find it everywhere. The reason why you find the bible largely everywhere is the printing press by Gutenberg. It became portable and gave everyone access to read it, and it's various translations into so many languages across the globe is nothing more than marketing of the religion itself, and being placing value on the book of fables as being worth the effort to translate and worth printing up.

Who wrote the bible by the way? Such an important book like that...no one wanting to take the credit. Seems rather suspect. You can't ascrbie the gospels to the name on them like LUKE to Luke, or John to John..simply because they are all written after the events have already happpend on average by about 170 years. So if they were written centuries after they event took place..and these were collections of stories passed down from one generation to the next...which isn't a far step from reality...then A) what's missing, B) what's mistranslated, C) who actually physically took to task of putting it all on paper. Not even going to get into the idea of the official canon yet.

We can easily get rid of the book, I've never seen the bible teach a man anything useful or factual. I have seen it inspire hatred, slavery, stupidity, gullibility, sexism, racism, homophobia, and war howver.

Evolutionary fact was made based on scientifc analysis and observation. Actual provable ideads, like I'm typing on a computer. The language I am typing in is English. I've never known Darwin to cause any wars, inspire slavery, or stupidity.

God choose to create out of love? That's just reaching and assumptive. God's does not create without a purpose you say? So there are no leftover parts? Then why are humans still born with an appendix? It serves no function in humans today other than when it gets infected and has to be remove in case of death. Surely, he could just snap his cosmic fingers and poof every human with one now..would no longer have one. Fact is however it is proof of evolution its vestigal. Meaning serving no current function. And eventually humans will be born without one, being further proof of evolution. God can do whatever he wants? Even break the rules of justice and morality? By impregnating another man's wife..or young woman? Killing innocents in a flood? Making his half man/half GOD son...pay for the sins of other people? Even the Jews and Muslims don't agree with that nonsense. And they are more devout, more than likely than any Christian.

God chooses to act wisely? Hurriance Katrina. Enough said. Surely GOD could've gotten off his cosmic ass and saved those people who drowned in those nursing homes and hospitals! Or maybe parted the waters so families wouldn't have to jump to their death and die of starvation, hypothermia, or disintery? Act wisely my ass!

Jesus did not exercise free will. If he did he would not have sacrificed himself. He's very clear of acknowledging he has a duty to die, not that he states he has a choice. If he had a choice, he could've just forgiven all sins..and kept on rolling but no he had to die in order to forgive. Which is the actions of a sadistic GOD, and it's followers. Jesus was not born to a virgin either, the proper translation would be young woman. Difference between being a young woman of say 23, and being a virgin as well. C'mon now. You really want me to believe Joseph never consumated his marriage with his wife? Now your just being gullible and stupid.

Glad you brought up Adam and Eve, just further proof of his stupidity. First off you create these two people. Alright. You place them in a garden with a talking snake whose capabilities you know are going to **** up your creations. That's one. Two, you place a tree there in the middle of it..they are not supposed to eat from. Why place it there in the first place? Why not just not create the tree?

And don't give me he was testing them bullshit. Because they did not have any knowledge at all prior to eating it. If God would've gave them knowledge however before eating it, they would not have. They did not know what death was, they could not have had any idea of the concept. After all, they had not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge yet. So when GOD told them before they ate it, to eat of this tree you will surely die...GOD had to know wouldn't make sense to them because..they didn't know what the **** death was...they couldn't have so what you're saying ain't gonna fly. Your also ****ing up the story...after they ate it...they hid...again, GOD didn't pick up on this...after the fact...nor did he stop them before they were about to anyway. And he then kicked them out.

This proves my point about him being amoral. Because if he was moral, caring, loving all those attributes you ascribe...HE WOULD'VE STOPPED THEM. But he didn't. No why would a loving GOD want to punish his creation, that he knows didn't have any prior knowledge?

Your GOD is a sick bastard. That's like beating a child with a belt for running around when you know damned good and well they don't understand you, and you haven't attempted to teach them anything.

Sin is bullshit. First off, define wrong. And two, what about people who believe what they are doing is right...but then is wrong? It doesn't count against them, but will count against someone else? Bullshit once again. I kill a child molester. I felt I was right and justified. But I am wrong. But I think I am right. So which one am I?

All intelligent life who obeys GOD does not suffer? Definition please. Are plants and animals included in that? UFO's as well?
 
Who are these scientists you speak of that do not agree with evolutionary fact? By all means I would love to read some of their work, and show you how huge idiots they are in the first place. Every notable scientist on planet Earth, agrees with evolutionary fact. The fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists, religious scientists are the one's most likely you are talking about..and honestly that like copying the answers of the guy in high school who got a C+, but not the guy who was getting the A.

Read the last page of the religious thread for some more on the supposed evolution as fact theory you guys have. It is a fact that humans die, but evolution is not a fact, it is a belief, a faith. That in effect is your God you know, science and evolution. Your God. Chance. Yes, you worship chance. Here is some stuff on your origin of live.

Moods Change?Riddles Remain

In the years since, however, that optimism has evaporated. Decades have passed, and life?s secrets remain elusive. Some 40 years after his experiment, Professor Stanley L Miller told Scientific American: ?The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.? Other scientists share this change of mood. For example, back in 1969, Professor of Biology Dean H. Kenyon coauthored Biochemical Predestination. But more recently he concluded that it is ?fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.?

Indeed, laboratory work bears out Kenyon?s assessment that there is ?a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life.? After Miller and others had synthesized amino acids, scientists set out to make proteins and DNA, both of which are necessary for life on earth. After thousands of experiments with so-called prebiotic conditions, what was the outcome? The Mystery of Life?s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories notes: ?There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA.? The latter efforts are characterized by ?uniform failure.?

Realistically, the mystery encompasses more than how the first protein and nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) molecules came into existence. It includes how they work together. ?It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible,? says The New Encyclop?dia Britannica. Yet the encyclopedia notes that how that partnership could come about remains ?a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life.? True, indeed.

Appendix A, ?Teamwork for Life? (pages 45-7), reviews some basic details of the intriguing teamwork between protein and nucleic acids in our cells. Even such a glimpse into the realm of our body cells elicits admiration for the work of scientists in this field. They have shed light on extraordinarily complex processes that few of us even think about but that operate every moment of our lives. From another standpoint, however, the staggering complexity and precision required returns us to the question, How did all of this come about?

You may know that origin-of-life scientists have not ceased trying to formulate a plausible scenario for the drama about the first appearance of life. Nevertheless, their new scripts are not proving to be convincing. (See Appendix B, ?From ?the RNA World? or Another World?? page 48.) For example, Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, observed: ?At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.?

Even at the 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life, no solutions were forthcoming. Instead, the journal Science reported that the nearly 300 scientists who convened had ?grappled with the riddle of how [DNA and RNA] molecules first appeared and how they evolved into self-reproducing cells.?

Intelligence and advanced education were required to study and even begin to explain what occurs at the molecular level in our cells. Is it reasonable to believe that complicated steps occurred first in a ?prebiotic soup,? undirected, spontaneously, and by chance? Or was more involved?

Why the Riddles?

A person today can look back over nearly half a century of speculation and thousands of attempts to prove that life originated on its own. If one does that, it would be hard to disagree with Nobel laureate Francis Crick. Speaking about origin-of-life theories, Crick observed that there is ?too much speculation running after too few facts.? It is thus understandable that some scientists who examine the facts conclude that life is much too complex to pop up even in an organized laboratory, let alone in an uncontrolled environment.

If advanced science cannot prove that life could arise by itself, why do some scientists continue to hold to such theories? A few decades ago, Professor J. D. Bernal offered some insight in the book The Origin of Life: ?By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.? He added: ?Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.? And the picture has not improved.

Consider the underlying import of such reasoning. It is as much as saying: ?Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.? Are you comfortable with such logic? Does not such reasoning call for a lot of ?bending? of the facts?

There are, however, knowledgeable, respected scientists who do not see a need to bend facts to fit a prevailing philosophy on the origin of life. Rather, they permit the facts to point to a reasonable conclusion. What facts and what conclusion?

Information and Intelligence

Interviewed in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, answered:

?We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.? He added: ?For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.?

The more you learn about the wonders of life, the more logical it is to agree with that conclusion: The origin of life requires an intelligent source. What source?

As noted earlier, millions of educated individuals conclude that life on earth must have been produced by a higher intelligence, a designer. Yes, after examining the matter fairly, they have accepted that even in our scientific age, it is reasonable to agree with the Biblical poet who long ago said about God: ?For with you is the source of life.??Psalm 36:

Stanley Millers experiment.
Classic but Questionable

Stanley Miller?s experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth?s primordial atmosphere was ?reducing.? That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why?

The Mystery of Life?s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ?none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.? How solid was Miller?s presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere?

In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: ?These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.??Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.

Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: ?Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.??Technology Review, April 1981.

And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: ?Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller?s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.?

Why, then, do many still hold that earth?s early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen? In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, ?laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen? and because compounds such as amino acids ?are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen.?

Is this not circular reasoning? The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing.

There is another telling detail: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

[Footnote]

Oxygen is highly reactive. For example, it combines with iron and forms rust or with hydrogen and forms water. If there was much free oxygen in an atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would quickly combine with and dismantle the organic molecules as they formed.

More.
Professor Michael J. Behe stated: ?To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. . . . Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.?

?A Deliberate Intellectual Act?

British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has spent decades studying the universe and life in it, even espousing that life on earth arrived from outer space. Lecturing at the California Institute of Technology, he discussed the order of amino acids in proteins.

?The big problem in biology,? Hoyle said, ?isn?t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless in serving the purposes of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it?s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be??

Hoyle added: ?Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.?
 
Who are these scientists you speak of that do not agree with evolutionary fact? By all means I would love to read some of their work, and show you how huge idiots they are in the first place. Every notable scientist on planet Earth, agrees with evolutionary fact. The fringe scientists, pseudo-scientists, religious scientists are the one's most likely you are talking about..and honestly that like copying the answers of the guy in high school who got a C+, but not the guy who was getting the A.
So now you will insult the intelligence of persons who spend countless hrs trying to prove what you believe, but because they exercise logic along with their vast knowledge, and come to a different conclusion than you and those who believe like you, simply because they disagree? Take away their degrees! They cannot be REAL SCIENTISTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T AGREE WITH EVOLUTION!! Wow.

We were not all created by Jehovah. That's not factual in of itself. You BELIEVE you were created by Jehvoah. Big differece to beliving in something because your faith requires you to do so, and another to suggest that factually mankind and all things in the universe were created by what you think is a supreme external force outside the laws of nature, physics, biology, and chemistry.
If you would read the creative days post in the religious thread, it may help you to know that Science itself pretty much would agree that how the creative days are said to have happened, evolution would have happened that way.

So because the other people folks thought were GOD's don't count because no one said nothing earlier? What kind of BS is that? Seriosuly. If no one would have prohpezied about Jesus...then you're telling me based on that assumption that folks today would not be walking around as Christians? People believe what they wish. Fact remains people saw Zeus, Osiris, Alexander as GODS. Jesus his very existence comes from pagan mythology...man born to a GOD and a mortal woman...roman, greek, eygptian history is filled with these..and by the way they existed millenias before Chrisitanity even came about..that's world history right there...and it's factual.
For a fact I'm telling you there would not be Christianity if not for the prophesies and appearance of Jesus fulfilling these prophecies. And the fact that the God of the bible can say what will happen centuries before they do and they happen exactly as he says lends credibility to him being the true God, would it not? Jesus very existence did not stem from pagan myths, because all the bible prophesied about Jesus he fulfilled, or will very shortly. There is a difference.

And again, the fact that these other societies had Gods, means they just rightly acknowledged a higher being. Does not mean they got it right. Same as with evolution. It basically means this all had a beginning, but it discredits intelligent design, and runs with chance as the intelligent design. Something came from nothing, by chance.. Great.

The Bible is not source proof of anything, do I really have to engage you into a discussion of why it can't be used as a source of historical fact?
Yes, please engage me. Please tell me how the Christians in Jerusalem between 66 ce and 70 ce knew to flee to Judea to save themselves from utter destruction like the Jews who remained their by NOT heeding Jesus' warning to FLEE WHEN YOU SEE JERUSALEM ENCAMPED BY STAKES. The only people to survive that destruction were the Christians who heeded the warning and the Jews who were taken into captivity by the Romans. Jesus told that prophecy before he died almost forty years earlier. That is just one. Engage me though.

There were a few prophecies about Alexander the Great being a GOD, but those came after his life.

So then how is it a prophecy? It has to be foretold to be prophetic. Thought you knew that? I mean, the bible has a prophecy about Alexander, BEFORE he lived it. Even said who would take over his Kingdom from within his cabinet. And it was not his sons or family members. Astounding. So which would one with common sense believe to be true? The one that came AFTER he had conquered, or the one that tells his life, and untimely death, and who will take over his vast kingdom long before he was even born? I will let you tell it.

People attirbuted to him he was a GOD for all the known world that he had conquered. But he wasn't the first leader of a society to be ascribed himself as GOD's so called representative. Louis XVI, The Pope, Hitler, Stalin, Juliuis Ceasar, Nero, Caligula, Seti I, Seti II, Tut, Nerftiti....just to name a few more examples of leaders who were described and held as GODs by the common people in their society. Hell even the english had their versions...Henry VIII, Edwards VII, Victoria II..etc....you don't see a pattern here??
Yea, people are mislead. That is the pattern. Clearly these persons were not actual Gods, they were human. Even Jesus was human. Humans are not Gods. But one of those humans is the son OF GOD. And all things written beforehand about him he fulfilled during his life, or will in th every near future. Big, big difference.



All the persons on that list with the exception of Vespatian, Augustus, and Alexander are/were actual persons. The rest of them just simply their GOD's at the time the people believed in, worshipped, sacrificed for, fought for, died for, believed blessed them...just like this Jesus person.

Where is this evidence Jesus was a real actual person? Because reading through the mythologies of the Greeks, Romans, and Eygptians who by they way conquered the supposed holy lands at various times in their empires respective histories...exchanged cultures, and ideals with the people's as well. Wouldn't be a logical shock if someone decided to incorporate all these stories, and powers..into their own hero. Basically, Jesus is a rip-off of other myths..and better one's too I might add..far more entertain and harmless.
The evidence is all around you Jesus existed. The things he said would take place during our time are taking place, exactly how he said they would. The Christians who lived past 70 ce listened to him and owe their lives to him foretelling what would happen, and how to escape the tragedy of the destruction of Jerusalem that year. How would they know what to look for to escape if not forewarned? The Jews there thought Jehovah had once again saved them when the romans in 66 ce encamped the army and for whatever reason.. just left. Why did the Christians decide to flee, When millions of Jews stayed?

But concerning our time, Jesus said this in mathew 24:14: AND THIS GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM WILL BE PREACHED IN ALL THE INHABITED EARTH FOR A WITNESS TO ALL THE NATIONS, AND THEN THE END WILL COME.

That massive preaching work has been going on for quite awhile now. Another prophecy turned true.

It's funny the Egyptians with their vast tapestry of history, and record keeping...have no mention of this "Moses" person, or any of the plaque's that happened or anything. You would think something so huge, and big in human history..one of their scribes would have wrote this down on some kind of official stone or parchment...but no instead it only finds itself in books about fairytales like religion.
Would you keep a record of such a blow to all you know, love and believe? Jehovah shattered everything they believed in. Their many Gods could not protect them, while the God of their slaves not only protected his people, but they prospered throughout the ordeal. Even the surrounding nations recognized Jehovah was behind it. And the Jews as his people prospered for over 1500 years after that due to him. True story.


You haven't proven there is a GOD, there is a Jehovah. All you have done is sit here and expose your beliefs, as fact. No more no less.

And by the way...let's assume for a second all the bullshit your talking is true...how do you know for a fact GOD is a Christian??
Again, you would have to wanna truly accept that there is a God. God reveals himself to those truly seeking him. Right now, you are saying there is no God. Kinda tough for you to put faith in something you don't feel is real or tangible. Proof can smack you in the face and you would not know it. You would have to understand why all these things have taken place, and to do that you would have to peer into God's written word, the bible, which you regard as a fairytale.

So the issue here is not God at all, it's you.
 

TunerAddict

Starter
So now you will insult the intelligence of persons who spend countless hrs trying to prove what you believe, but because they exercise logic along with their vast knowledge, and come to a different conclusion than you and those who believe like you, simply because they disagree? Take away their degrees! They cannot be REAL SCIENTISTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T AGREE WITH EVOLUTION!! Wow.

If you would read the creative days post in the religious thread, it may help you to know that Science itself pretty much would agree that how the creative days are said to have happened, evolution would have happened that way.


For a fact I'm telling you there would not be Christianity if not for the prophesies and appearance of Jesus fulfilling these prophecies. And the fact that the God of the bible can say what will happen centuries before they do and they happen exactly as he says lends credibility to him being the true God, would it not? Jesus very existence did not stem from pagan myths, because all the bible prophesied about Jesus he fulfilled, or will very shortly. There is a difference.

And again, the fact that these other societies had Gods, means they just rightly acknowledged a higher being. Does not mean they got it right. Same as with evolution. It basically means this all had a beginning, but it discredits intelligent design, and runs with chance as the intelligent design. Something came from nothing, by chance.. Great.

Yes, please engage me. Please tell me how the Christians in Jerusalem between 66 ce and 70 ce knew to flee to Judea to save themselves from utter destruction like the Jews who remained their by NOT heeding Jesus' warning to FLEE WHEN YOU SEE JERUSALEM ENCAMPED BY STAKES. The only people to survive that destruction were the Christians who heeded the warning and the Jews who were taken into captivity by the Romans. Jesus told that prophecy before he died almost forty years earlier. That is just one. Engage me though.



So then how is it a prophecy? It has to be foretold to be prophetic. Thought you knew that? I mean, the bible has a prophecy about Alexander, BEFORE he lived it. Even said who would take over his Kingdom from within his cabinet. And it was not his sons or family members. Astounding. So which would one with common sense believe to be true? The one that came AFTER he had conquered, or the one that tells his life, and untimely death, and who will take over his vast kingdom long before he was even born? I will let you tell it.

Yea, people are mislead. That is the pattern. Clearly these persons were not actual Gods, they were human. Even Jesus was human. Humans are not Gods. But one of those humans is the son OF GOD. And all things written beforehand about him he fulfilled during his life, or will in th every near future. Big, big difference.



The evidence is all around you Jesus existed. The things he said would take place during our time are taking place, exactly how he said they would. The Christians who lived past 70 ce listened to him and owe their lives to him foretelling what would happen, and how to escape the tragedy of the destruction of Jerusalem that year. How would they know what to look for to escape if not forewarned? The Jews there thought Jehovah had once again saved them when the romans in 66 ce encamped the army and for whatever reason.. just left. Why did the Christians decide to flee, When millions of Jews stayed?

But concerning our time, Jesus said this in mathew 24:14: AND THIS GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM WILL BE PREACHED IN ALL THE INHABITED EARTH FOR A WITNESS TO ALL THE NATIONS, AND THEN THE END WILL COME.

That massive preaching work has been going on for quite awhile now. Another prophecy turned true.

Would you keep a record of such a blow to all you know, love and believe? Jehovah shattered everything they believed in. Their many Gods could not protect them, while the God of their slaves not only protected his people, but they prospered throughout the ordeal. Even the surrounding nations recognized Jehovah was behind it. And the Jews as his people prospered for over 1500 years after that due to him. True story.



Again, you would have to wanna truly accept that there is a God. God reveals himself to those truly seeking him. Right now, you are saying there is no God. Kinda tough for you to put faith in something you don't feel is real or tangible. Proof can smack you in the face and you would not know it. You would have to understand why all these things have taken place, and to do that you would have to peer into God's written word, the bible, which you regard as a fairytale.

So the issue here is not God at all, it's you.

Thats one of the most ignorant, arrogant things I've ever read.

We are the issue? Why aren't you? You are an elitist who sees himself above those who think differently.

Plus you act like you've proven your argument. You haven't even given evidence!

Your evidence is like;

No evolution because Jehovah created us.

It can't be true because Jesus was the most loving person.

Many scientists disagree.

Those things aren't evidence. How do you know Jehovah created us? How do you know Jesus was the most loving person? Where are these scientists? Do they have ethos? No evidence whatsoever.
 
Whatever his purposes are, he fulfills them? That's what you said. Now if that were at any point a truthful statement...then how do you know to serve him is one of the things you must fulfill without having been previously told by another person...more than likely a parent?? God's approval you say? Then what about the subject of killing in GOD's name, where is the approval on that?...
Well God told the Jews to pass down his laws to their children, they MUST do that. They must live Jehovah's laws and regulations. their very lives depended on it. Jehovah puts a heavy burden on the parents as guardians to keep his statutes alive in their children. So why would he not have his word passed down from generation to generation? He did so for Jesus, as Jesus himself said everything he knows the Father has taught him. Jehovah is a parent and teacher, why would he not require the same from us?

God does not approve of people going out and killing in his name. At no point in time was that the case. Any time he approved of a war or such, it was to protect his people, and sanctify his name as the God who actually ACTS on behalf of his people. The crusades, or other wise? That was not Jehovah's doing at all. Nowhere does the scriptures say he backed senseless slaughter in his name. So if you refer to such, than you do well not to attach his name to it. It does not come from him.

No you moron. What Thomas Paine was saying that...an intelligent all knowing all powerful being would not use human language to deliver his cosmic message. Because an already intelligent being would know human language not only changes, but also morphs, and different words have different interpretations. You see an intelligent GOD would already know shit like this to begin with, not this galactic underachiever you people would blindly follow off a cliff if the megaphone was loud enough for you to hear it. For GOD, to use human language would signify he's not that bright in the first place. Because he's not aware of human language being so changeable over the course of time. He would have too see it coming, (wait that doesn't mean that anymore, so I've got to redo my message and use these words because those words don't mean what they used to...and if people interpret them WRONG it's going to **** up my message) an intelligent GOD would know and have already seen that coming. So using human language more or less is the sign of a stupid GOD. Also that does not explain why the bible is translated and you find it everywhere. The reason why you find the bible largely everywhere is the printing press by Gutenberg. It became portable and gave everyone access to read it, and it's various translations into so many languages across the globe is nothing more than marketing of the religion itself, and being placing value on the book of fables as being worth the effort to translate and worth printing up.
I hope you don't call people morons in every discussion you have in life, because they disagree with you. I'll give you more credit than that.

And I disagree with with mr. Paine because God is the one who broke up the languages when Nimrod was building the tower of Babel. The one who can make the universe is certainly capable of making sure the entire inhabited earth can have a chance to read and understand his word. That simple. I have no problem understanding the bible in old English or our current English. As Im sure people in spanish, or Chinese do not lack the understanding as well. In fact there is one world religion that agree totally on everything the bible has to say without any discrepancy! You could travel from one part of the world one day, and to another the next and not skip a beat in understanding God's word with this religion. You cannot get 5 people to agree in the same household usually, but somehow, millions worldwide hold the same understanding and belief in one book, unitedly. Just as Jehovah said would happen during our time in the bible.

Who wrote the bible by the way? Such an important book like that...no one wanting to take the credit. Seems rather suspect. You can't ascrbie the gospels to the name on them like LUKE to Luke, or John to John..simply because they are all written after the events have already happpend on average by about 170 years. So if they were written centuries after they event took place..and these were collections of stories passed down from one generation to the next...which isn't a far step from reality...then A) what's missing, B) what's mistranslated, C) who actually physically took to task of putting it all on paper. Not even going to get into the idea of the official canon yet.
40 different writers, and none take the credit because it is inspired of God. He is the author, the writers are simply doing secretarial work. And what proof do you have that on avg the writings all happened 170 years after the facts have been produced?

?The Bible is the most widely distributed book in history.??The World Book Encyclopedia.

OVER 550 years ago, the German inventor Johannes Gutenberg began printing with movable type. The first major book to come off his press was a Bible. Since then, billions upon billions of books on every subject imaginable have been printed. The Bible, however, is by far the most exceptional of them all.

▪ It is estimated that more than 4.7 billion Bibles (in whole or in part) have been printed. That is more than five times the number of copies of the next most widely distributed publication, Quotations From Chairman Mao.

▪ More than 50 million copies of the Bible or portions of it were distributed recently in one year alone. ?The Bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year,? says a report in The New Yorker magazine.

▪ In whole or in part, the Bible has been translated into more than 2,400 languages. At least some of the Bible is available in the languages spoken by over 90 percent of the human family.

▪ About half the Bible writers finished their writings before the birth of both Confucius, the renowned Chinese sage, and Siddhārtha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.

▪ The Bible has had a profound influence on the arts, including some of the world?s greatest paintings, music, and literature.

▪ The Bible has endured bans by governments, burnings by religious opposers, and attacks by critics. No other book in history has faced greater opposition?and survived.

The above-mentioned facts are outstanding, are they not?

We can easily get rid of the book, I've never seen the bible teach a man anything useful or factual. I have seen it inspire hatred, slavery, stupidity, gullibility, sexism, racism, homophobia, and war howver.
EASILY EH? Read this again please.
The Bible has endured bans by governments, burnings by religious opposers, and attacks by critics. No other book in history has faced greater opposition?and survived. Easily rid? EASILY??????????

Never seen the bible teach a man ANYTHING useful? Wow, even the most hardcore bible haters will disagree with that. For instance, if everyone just did not commit fornication, or adultery, what would be the chances of std's spreading? If we heeded Gods word and were not to be greedy, could governments withhold food and resources from those in need because it does not fit into their financial plan? If the fear of losing life were gone on the earth due to murder, would the earth not be a much better place to live? Or do you even care about things like that?

And I agree with you. Through misuse and misrepresentation, the bible has been used to support those things you say. That does not mean that it was God's will that they took place. Clearly God is not in control of the way the world runs right now. If he were, the world would be in a lot better shape. Lots. Ghandi once said that Jesus Christ was the most influential man in human history. But the problem with Christianity is that Christians do not BEGIN to live up to what Jesus stood for. So again, it is not God, that is the problem, it is the people who do not OBEY what his word says. For instance, What war did Jesus start? Who did he kill, or fornicate with, or lie to? What Jesus DID do, was follow the laws of Jehovah while on earth, proving that living God's way is better than not. And he said to follow him, you must do the same. Therefore, if you are claiming to be Christian, yet you are off to the war in Iraq, are you really a Christian? When Jesus met opposition on his beliefs, he did not kill them for it, he preached and moved on. So ask yourself again, would a TRUE CHRISTIAN murder because of opposition? Or is something else driving them?



Evolutionary fact was made based on scientifc analysis and observation. Actual provable ideads, like I'm typing on a computer. The language I am typing in is English. I've never known Darwin to cause any wars, inspire slavery, or stupidity.
If evolution was a fact, there would not be this much dissention amongst the scientific field itself over it. And I have never Known Jesus to start such things either.

God choose to create out of love? That's just reaching and assumptive.
Not when one is all powerful and there is no reason for him to create otherwise.
God's does not create without a purpose you say? So there are no leftover parts? Then why are humans still born with an appendix? It serves no function in humans today other than when it gets infected and has to be remove in case of death. Surely, he could just snap his cosmic fingers and poof every human with one now..would no longer have one. Fact is however it is proof of evolution its vestigal.Meaning serving no current function
Why is water wet? Why is the sky blue? We do we have an appendix. Some questions we just do not have answers for. Maybe one day we will. That does not mean it's purposely because we cannot find a usage. And you used the correct wording.. current usage.
God can do whatever he wants? Even break the rules of justice and morality? By impregnating another man's wife..or young woman? Killing innocents in a flood? Making his half man/half GOD son...pay for the sins of other people? Even the Jews and Muslims don't agree with that nonsense. And they are more devout, more than likely than any Christian.

Joseph and Mary were both descendants of King David, the line in which Jesus was foretold to be born from. I'd hardly call the Nephilim (half human and angelic)and those wicked people innocent during the flood. and the bottom line is, those people chose death. Noah preached what God was going to do to those people, they all had the chance to live if they just.. stepped onto the ark. Jesus is not God at all. AT NO TIME WAS JESUS GOD. In heaven, or earth. He IS NEVER, EVER, EVER, GOD. He always said he was God's son. And Jehovah did not make Jesus, Jesus chose too to sanctify Jehovah as the true God. He always does the things pleasing to his father he said. And because he did that, Jehovah's plans will resume for the earth as he originally intended. Remember, those people ARE YOU AND I! Adam and Eve sinned without any children. Would it be fair for God to continue to let their children suffer through imperfection, sin, sickness and death because of their choosing to disobey him? Jesus was the way out. He is called the ransom for that very reason. He bought back what Adam lost. AND ALL THOSE HAVING FAITH IN HIS SACRIFICE WILL GAIN LIFE THROUGH IT. That is what the resurrection will bring.

Jews and muslims do not have the truth. That is why they do not believe, they do not Have Jehovah's backing. And you need that. It's essential to life. A true Christian lives a god fearing life, and recognizes Jehovah as God. Jews say they serve Jehovah, but won't say his name, and do not recognize Jesus as the messiah who was provided by the God they claim to serve. No way could a practicing Jew serve Jehovah better than a TRUE Christian. Because True Christians recognize Jehovah as God. Like the JEWS USED TO DO WHEN THEY HAD JEHOVAH'S FAVOR! Now there is a difference between supposed Christians, and TRUE Christians. True Christians just do what Jesus said to do, while the others do what appeals best for their life while intertwining Christianity. Which is not really Christianity. I will leave Muslims alone.

God chooses to act wisely? Hurriance Katrina. Enough said. Surely GOD could've gotten off his cosmic ass and saved those people who drowned in those nursing homes and hospitals! Or maybe parted the waters so families wouldn't have to jump to their death and die of starvation, hypothermia, or disintery? Act wisely my ass!

God said their would be a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous. Surely most if not all of those victims have a chance at that. To understand why he even allows this you would AGAIN have to understand the issue of sovereignty. But long story short, he plans to fix all of this permanently. Maybe you should ask to be informed of this sovereignty issue. Maybe it will help you understand things better.


Jesus did not exercise free will. If he did he would not have sacrificed himself. He's very clear of acknowledging he has a duty to die, not that he states he has a choice.If he had a choice, he could've just forgiven all sins..and kept on rolling but no he had to die in order to forgive. Which is the actions of a sadistic GOD, and it's followers.
A sacrifice is choosing to give up willingly. Not forced. So the fact that it's CALLED A SACRIFICE MEANS THAT IT WAS GIVEN WITH FREE WILL AND INTENTION!

And just a few posts up I showed you why he had to die in order for his duty to sacrifice to Jehovah to be done. Adam was perfect before sin, and Jesus was born through a virgin for the purpose of being made PERFECT. Had Joseph fathered him naturally, then he could not have ever been made perfect. Jesus death was a ransom because his perfect life covers Adams formerly perfect life. Hence why Jesus is called the eternal father, because he basically became father to all humans who will be made to perfection once again due to his sacrifice. So for this to all be done, YES IT WAS JESUS' DUTY TO DIE. But he also CHOSE TO MAKE IT HIS DUTY. HE WILLINGLY TOOK THE JOB! In the old Jewish system, they had to sacrifice blood from animals once a year for the purpose of forgiveness of sins. Animals don't measure up to Adams perfect life, so while Jehovah LOVINGLY accepted the sacrifices, only a perfect HUMAN life would be the sacrifice needed to truly be able to forgive sins. That is what Jesus death provided.

So really, God was not being sadistic at all as you say. Out of love, he allowed his only begotten son to die on a stake at the hands of his enemies, and the plan being conjured up by the very ones who he protected, who were suppose to recognize him as the MESSIAH sent from THEIR GOD, for all those who exercised faith in him, could have life.

Would you send your only begotten to die on behalf of others knowing only few would even recognize the value of his death the way they should? Sadistic you say?


Jesus was not born to a virgin either, the proper translation would be young woman. Difference between being a young woman of say 23, and being a virgin as well. C'mon now. You really want me to believe Joseph never consumated his marriage with his wife? Now your just being gullible and stupid.
Luke 1
:26 In her sixth month( elizabeth, wife of zecariah, they were kin to Mary) the angel Ga?bri?el was sent forth from God to a city of Gal?i?lee named Naz?a?reth, 27 TO A VIRGIN PROMISED IN MARRIAGE to a man named Joseph of David?s house; and the name of the virgin was Mary. 28 And when he went in before her he said: ?Good day, highly favored one, Jehovah is with you.? 29 But she was deeply disturbed at the saying and began to reason out what sort of greeting this might be. 30 So the angel said to her: ?Have no fear, Mary, for you have found favor with God; 31 and, look! you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you are to call his name Jesus. 32 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom.?
34 But Mary said to the angel: ?HOW IS THIS TO BE, SINCE IA M HAVING NO INTERCOURSE WITH A MAN?35 In answer the angel said to her: ?Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God?s Son.

This same Holy spirit is said to be used in the creative days. Surely if one can make the Universe, and life on earth, he can make life in a virgin. Notice that Joseph was NOT married to her yet. In fact the angel had to tell Joseph about the pregnancy because he was going to leave Mary without shaming her, until told of what was happening by the angel.

Glad you brought up Adam and Eve, just further proof of his stupidity. First off you create these two people. Alright. You place them in a garden with a talking snake whose capabilities you know are going to **** up your creations. That's one. Two, you place a tree there in the middle of it..they are not supposed to eat from. Why place it there in the first place? Why not just not create the tree?
First off, snakes cannot talk. The voice behind the snake was an angel. The bible says Eve was deceived. Which means even perfect people can be lied too. The issue lied with Adam, which explains why the effects of sin did not manifest in Eve until ADAM ate. Adam KNEW FOR SURE That snakes cannot talk, and that all what Eve had heard was a lie. HE BLATANTLY CHOSE TO DISOBEY GOD. That is why when he ate, all of a sudden they felt the effects of sin. Jehovah held him more responsible being he placed him there long before Eve, and he knew for sure it was a lie being told. Satan attacked Eve because she was new, and he preyed on her for that very reason, hoping out of love Adam would follow suit, which he did.

The tree was placed their to serve as Law for all God had done for Adam and Eve. If they never ate, it showed they had a healthy fear and love for the God who provided all these wonderful things they had, including free will. If there was no tree, they would have been devoid of free will. Cannot have free will if you do not have free choice.

And don't give me he was testing them bullshit. Because they did not have any knowledge at all prior to eating it. If God would've gave them knowledge however before eating it, they would not have. They did not know what death was, they could not have had any idea of the concept. After all, they had not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge yet. So when GOD told them before they ate it, to eat of this tree you will surely die...GOD had to know wouldn't make sense to them because..they didn't know what the **** death was...they couldn't have so what you're saying ain't gonna fly. Your also ****ing up the story...after they ate it...they hid...again, GOD didn't pick up on this...after the fact...nor did he stop them before they were about to anyway. And he then kicked them out.
No prior knowledge huh?

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: ?Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden?? 2 At this the woman said to the serpent: ?Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. 3 But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ?YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.??

Clearly Eve had prior knowledge of the consequences of disobeying. She reiterated it to the snake before she ate! The snake did not respond with what is death, the snake replied with gen 3: 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: ?YOU positively will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad.? So the snake is implying that they would be like God who cannot die, but knows everything and lives forever on top of that. Using logic you can tell Eve Knew death would mean cease living. And so did the snake. At the very least, they knew death was a penalty of some sort.

Clearly it's faulty reasoning to suggest otherwise.

This proves my point about him being amoral. Because if he was moral, caring, loving all those attributes you ascribe...HE WOULD'VE STOPPED THEM. But he didn't. No why would a loving GOD want to punish his creation, that he knows didn't have any prior knowledge?
If he would have stopped them, would that have proven that Adam and Eve love him out of their own free will? Or would have been robots at that point? He gave them free will to be able to exercise it. It is their choice to do so wisely, or unwisely. If he stops them, they ain't really free moral agents. Plus, he did warn them beforehand, don't know why you keep saying he didn't.

Your GOD is a sick bastard. That's like beating a child with a belt for running around when you know damned good and well they don't understand you, and you haven't attempted to teach them anything.
You have been mislead in your knowledge of the bible. So I understand more now why you write things like this.

Sin is bullshit. First off, define wrong.
Wrong is opposition to right, in which case you need to know what is right. Since most people know that if they lived by what God said is right, things would be a lot better, heck, even PERFECT! it's safe to say living opposite of that is likely very wrong.

And two, what about people who believe what they are doing is right...but then is wrong? It doesn't count against them, but will count against someone else? Bullshit once again. I kill a child molester. I felt I was right and justified. But I am wrong. But I think I am right. So which one am I?
So your method of right is to do wrong to try and make a right? Child molestation is wrong. But it is wrong based upon Gods standards. And so is murder. God says vengeance belongs to him. In due time, he plans to rectify all the things we know as wrongs permanently. It sucks that things like that even happen, but none of it was ever God's intention. He will fix things though. He has already started.

But question. If evolution is true, why would stuff like Child molestation and murder even be viewed as wrong? Isn't evolution the supposed survival of the fittest? Would things such as those just be a natural recourse of evolution? I would think so.


All intelligent life who obeys GOD does not suffer? Definition please. Are plants and animals included in that? UFO's as well?

I never said that. all intelligent life who obey God SURELY suffer. In many different ways usually. Even loss of life! And plants and animals suffer because because of the ones who are here to look after them (humans) Not because they obey God. They are not free moral agents, they cannot worship. But they suffer because the world is out of wack due to who is running it right now.

UFO'S? Never seen one of those.
 
Thats one of the most ignorant, arrogant things I've ever read.

We are the issue? Why aren't you? You are an elitist who sees himself above those who think differently.
I was talking about him personally in that post, but that does not mean I DO NOT PLAY A PART IN THAT ISSUE. You have taken it out of context. We all play a part in it. either you acknowledge God or you don't. But if you don't it is not because he does not want you too, or does not provide help in getting to know him. It is because you won't accept him. All that means. Same if evolution was true. The knowledge of it is available, it is up to the reader to distinguish whether its applicable or not.

Plus you act like you've proven your argument. You haven't even given evidence!
Your evidence is like;

No evolution because Jehovah created us.

It can't be true because Jesus was the most loving person.

Many scientists disagree.

Those things aren't evidence. How do you know Jehovah created us? How do you know Jesus was the most loving person? Where are these scientists? Do they have ethos? No evidence whatsoever.

I have provided evidence. You just ignore it. Scientists cannot really prove that something came from nothing (evolution) Nowhere else in science would such a theory have a place, yet scientists still dogmatically reason that this is the exception. And to make it worse, not all of them even agree on it. Even some of the ones who reason that it happened, will say that the bibles creative days in gen is the most likely scenario it happened. I have posted some of this stuff in the religious thread. You should read it.

If you were perfect, and could not die, would you die a horrible death for imperfect people who do die and don't even respect you as a whole or your God? Well that is what Jesus did. Which is why I say he is the most loving human ever. Because non of us will do that. That is love.

And many scientists do disagree with evolution. That only hurts the evolution theory.
 

TunerAddict

Starter
If you were perfect, and could not die, would you die a horrible death for imperfect people who do die and don't even respect you as a whole or your God? Well that is what Jesus did. Which is why I say he is the most loving human ever. Because non of us will do that. That is love.

Proof?

Plus saying he is the most loving person, even if he was the son of god and died for us and so on, you would have had to have met every SINGLE person who has every lived to be able to say he was the MOST loving.

The fact is that your BELIEVE these things, they aren't fact. Its all relevant to the individual. You have NO proof. Noone does. Thats my point. Nothing can be proven, EVERYTHING is on faith. Science included. There is no deffinite answer, no beyond a reasonale doubt, etc...
 
Proof?

Plus saying he is the most loving person, even if he was the son of god and died for us and so on, you would have had to have met every SINGLE person who has every lived to be able to say he was the MOST loving.

The fact is that your BELIEVE these things, they aren't fact. Its all relevant to the individual. You have NO proof. Noone does. Thats my point. Nothing can be proven, EVERYTHING is on faith. Science included. There is no definite answer, no beyond a reasonale doubt, etc...

You would not really need to meet every living person. Jesus was in Heaven doing just fine before he chose to take on the assignment of dying as a human for our benefit. Are you leaving a life of comfort to choose to die for the benefit of someone elses glory and to save undeserving humans?
Jesus did exactly that.

So as far as you see it, you don't even really know if you really even exist? If all of this is even real? What is real? Like the matrix right?
 

TunerAddict

Starter
You would not really need to meet every living person. Jesus was in Heaven doing just fine before he chose to take on the assignment of dying as a human for our benefit. Are you leaving a life of comfort to choose to die for the benefit of someone elses glory and to save undeserving humans?
Jesus did exactly that.

So as far as you see it, you don't even really know if you really even exist? If all of this is even real? What is real? Like the matrix right?


Once again you're expressing your beliefs as facts without giving evidence. You cannot prove Jesus was the son of god.

And to your second paragraph, yes. This very well could be the matrix.

How can we be certain? We cannot.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Once again you're expressing your beliefs as facts without giving evidence. You cannot prove Jesus was the son of god.

And to your second paragraph, yes. This very well could be the matrix.

How can we be certain? We cannot.


Turner im just wondering because you are Muslim and you've read the Quran how does it explain the beginning of the world? I am not sure really I have heard that they follow Genesis so you believe that there was a Beginner to the world we live in today right?
 

TunerAddict

Starter
Turner im just wondering because you are Muslim and you've read the Quran how does it explain the beginning of the world? I am not sure really I have heard that they follow Genesis so you believe that there was a Beginner to the world we live in today right?


I'm not a Muslim. I'm an athiest. But what I'm saying is that you cannot prove anything.

Doesn't matter what you believe, you cannot prove any of it.
 
Top