I got a few hypothetical questions..

[anonymous2]

Let's look at the two major religions which believe in an eternal hell, that is Christianity and Islam. Say, for instance, hypothetically, that one of us humans was God (yes, pure blasphemy, grin), instead of "God" being God. Say, that this human created lifeforms which could feel pain and were sentient, and that they could act good or evil, but lived for a very brief time. Do you believe that this lifeform itself has intrinsic value, that even the "bad" members of the species don't deserve to be kept alive and tormented for eternity, EVEN IF its creator doesn't recognize that right? One could say that there should be punishment for the "bad" members of the newly created lifeform, but for how long? The creator would have the POWER to do what he wants, but would it be "morally proper" for the creator to do absolutely whatever he wishes? And if not, how is it justified for the believers of the God of these two major monotheistic religions to essentially say that it's "morally proper" to put people in eternal hell? Might does not make right, does it? What God wants does not make something "right", does it? What's actually "right" makes something "right", doesn't it? This goes back to the discussion I had with Jenyar where he said I was basically walking into hell, demanding my rights, and rejecting God at every step. I could say that I have the intrinsic right not to be tormented for eternity, whether I'm good or even if I'm "bad", whether a deity respects that right or not.

This is just something I was thinking about and I'd like some input. Thanks.

 

[Jenyar]

Your hypothesis is flawed as a comparison for a number of reasons. First, you presuppose a world in which those organisms we create would be able to live and survive (we didn't create earth). So their *default* existence would already be like our *exceptional* one. From such position it's easy to judge things "objectively", i.e. what would be good or bad for them. Second, you presuppose that *our* morality would be determined by *them* - or worse, *objectively* (where neither us nor them set the standard for morality).

Third, the lifeform would not have intrinsic value except what we give them, and what they are able to give themselves. Once again, the latter could be relative (they can love each other, or not) or objective (based on something beyond themselves - in other words, they defer judgment to us). It comes back to who you (their creator) is.

If you had created them in a bubble that could allow their existence, and you knew that the form they were given would be eternally frustrated outside that bubble, you would warn them not to leave it (if you cared). And if they puncture that bubble, suffer because of it, you can decide to make the first bubble temporary and give each one his own micro-bubble to live in (less than ideal, but it would still permit them some of the freedoms they enjoy). Now they start to puncture even that micro-bubble. They are ignoring you flat, and taking their existence and its limitations for granted. You start make it more and more clear that their existence will be unbearable outside your protection and the bubbles you provided. Now, on top of ignoring you, they resent you for "threatening" them. They wonder why they exist at all, if they can't exist outside bubbles. Why bubbles, why bodies, why existence? Again and again you warn them, correct them, you even join them in a bubble yourself, to show them what they're doing to each other - and to you.

 

[MarcAC]

...

Accolades.

 

[anonymous2]

Third, the lifeform would not have intrinsic value except what we give them, and what they are able to give themselves. Once again, the latter could be relative (they can love each other, or not) or objective (based on something beyond themselves - in other words, they defer judgment to us). It comes back to who you (their creator) is.

I disagree about the intrinsic value statement, but I understand your point. Everything which exists has intrinsic value, whether recognized as such or not. I don't know of anything which exists which has absolutely no intrinsic value. One can absolutely refuse to acknowledge the value of matter but that doesn't change the fact that it has value, and certainly a sentient being would have value, and especially its eternal soul, whether recognized or not. It has value in itself regardless of how one chooses to classify it. Things have value in themselves regardless of who acknowledges it. But that's my opinion. Thanks for your input.

 

[robtex]

Jenyar in your analogy let us say that

x1= all the souls God has created

y1= souls that accept Jesus and are going to heaven upon death
y2= souls that do not accept Jesus as their savior and are forbidden from entering heaven but instead spend eternity in hell

lets say that y1 =33 % of the current population and
y2= 67 % of the population

footnote link below.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

according to the proposed theory God is granting free will to souls on earth and rejecting 2/3 of them..or thinning his heard.

why would he make a (forgive my pun) an orchard full of apples and than throw out 2 out of three apples?

BTW if your muslim it much grimmer 19 % for y1 and 81 % for y2.


In an early thread you said that man is basically good but not perfect.....if more than 50 % of man is good (ie more good than bad) and 67 % are going to be dammned than by the most conservative estimates 16 % (67-51) of Good souls are going to be damned per 100 per lifetime.

 

[Jenyar]

I disagree about the intrinsic value statement, but I understand your point. Everything which exists has intrinsic value, whether recognized as such or not. I don't know of anything which exists which has absolutely no intrinsic value. One can absolutely refuse to acknowledge the value of matter but that doesn't change the fact that it has value, and certainly a sentient being would have value, and especially its eternal soul, whether recognized or not. It has value in itself regardless of how one chooses to classify it. Things have value in themselves regardless of who acknowledges it. But that's my opinion. Thanks for your input.

I'l play devil's advocate and ask you: why? Why should anything have intrinsic value - value "built into them"? You say it's a fact, but how?

I do believe that all things have value, but I believe that because God values them, as His creation - everything according to its nature. Does money have intrinsic value, for instance? It matters very much whether value is recognized.

It's very nice and commendable to say that something has "intrinsic value", but do you know why we say that? Because we rightly recognize that the only true value of things is something inalienable from them. Unlike gold or property, the value of a human being should not be determined by other human beings. So we pronounce it "intrinsic". By I still ask, why? Nature doesn't value us - to nature, we're evolutionary fodder. Rocks and kings shatter equally before it, both are equally humbled by its power. How much more not by God, who created nature and kings? And how much more value can anything have, than to God who cherishes it?

I contend that something cannot generate value by itself, it has to be attributed. And that we ourselves would not be able to attribute value to things beyond their "proven" economic value (by economic criteria like scarcity and demand), if we did not also value "subjective" interpersonal createria (i.e. relationships) - and that even these relationships themselves would be of purely arbitrary value, if we do not recognize the value God gave to their members.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar in your analogy let us say that

x1= all the souls God has created

y1= souls that accept Jesus and are going to heaven upon death
y2= souls that do not accept Jesus as their savior and are forbidden from entering heaven but instead spend eternity in hell

lets say that y1 =33 % of the current population and
y2= 67 % of the population

footnote link below.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

according to the proposed theory God is granting free will to souls on earth and rejecting 2/3 of them..or thinning his heard.

why would he make a (forgive my pun) an orchard full of apples and than throw out 2 out of three apples?

BTW if your muslim it much grimmer 19 % for y1 and 81 % for y2.

In an early thread you said that man is basically good but not perfect.....if more than 50 % of man is good (ie more good than bad) and 67 % are going to be dammned than by the most conservative estimates 16 % (67-51) of Good souls are going to be damned per 100 per lifetime.

Ask rather, why should God reject even 5 or 10% of the good trees if 90% fail to bear fruit? God was prepared to spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of just 10 inhabitants. He spared all of us for the sake of Noah and his family. No, nobody is rejected. But the trees that do not bear fruit will someday be cut down.

Free will is not a license to sin. Why isn't it considered mercy that God does not cut off all people who sin immediately? Because nobody would be left. The flood would wipe us all out, if God was not there to provide an ark.

It's difficult to argue an emotional argument, because it requires a similar response that somehow "outweighs" it emotionally. Something like, "yeah, but God can do whatever He wants". That's an easy way out, and I will not take it (many fall to that temptation, and much prejudices has been formed by such answers). I can only tell you what I have been given to know, and that leaves me with no easy answer or formula.

God did not set out with percentations in mind, that's just ridiculous. They don't impress me either. Statistics only show trends. They don't show fairness or unfairness, right or wrong. They can make my point as well as it makes yours. Do all Christians go to Christian heaven, and all Muslims to Muslim heaven? Do all non-Christians go to hell, or all non-Muslims? Those are just categories - they don't tell you anything about the hearts of people. It's not a popularity contest. God knows his own, and has always known them irrespective of religion. The question is, who knows God? Who will He recognize when we all come before Him?

A farmer does not start out already having decided how much of his crop he will lose. The problem is that humanity is a crop that moves. We move out from God's orchard and then complain when we fail to make it. "Everywhere and everything" is not God's orchard. Eden did not cover the whole Earth. Life with God is only possible where God is, just like breathing is only possible with oxygen. It's available in small quantities everywhere, but it's not supplied everywhere, and what we take for granted is not guaranteed to last - it has never been.

 

[water]

Let's look at the two major religions which believe in an eternal hell, that is Christianity and Islam. Say, for instance, hypothetically, that one of us humans was God (yes, pure blasphemy, grin), instead of "God" being God. Say, that this human created lifeforms which could feel pain and were sentient, and that they could act good or evil, but lived for a very brief time. Do you believe that this lifeform itself has intrinsic value, that even the "bad" members of the species don't deserve to be kept alive and tormented for eternity, EVEN IF its creator doesn't recognize that right?

The question is, whether you, anonymous2, believe that "this lifeform itself has intrinsic value, that even the "bad" members of the species don't deserve to be kept alive and tormented for eternity, EVEN IF its creator doesn't recognize that right?"

Secondly, I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that you believe that *your* Creator doesn't recognize the right of even the "bad" members not deserving to be kept alive and tormented for eternity, right?

(I've read your discussion with Jenyar in the other thread.)

One could say that there should be punishment for the "bad" members of the newly created lifeform, but for how long? The creator would have the POWER to do what he wants, but would it be "morally proper" for the creator to do absolutely whatever he wishes?

Ask:
1. Who created the morals, who decides what is "morally proper"?
2. Is there anyone *above* the creator?

And if not, how is it justified for the believers of the God of these two major monotheistic religions to essentially say that it's "morally proper" to put people in eternal hell? Might does not make right, does it?

My hairdresser says I should change my haircolour. Who or what is she to me that I would have to take her advice as set in stone?!

Lightness of example aside: What are those people to you, who threaten you with hell? Do they have some jurisdictive power over you? Does your life depend on obeying them?

What God wants does not make something "right", does it?

And you know *exactly* what God wants? Especialy in your case?

What's actually "right" makes something "right", doesn't it?

I'm afraid that's circular.

This goes back to the discussion I had with Jenyar where he said I was basically walking into hell, demanding my rights, and rejecting God at every step. I could say that I have the intrinsic right not to be tormented for eternity, whether I'm good or even if I'm "bad", whether a deity respects that right or not.

So you think you have the "intrinsic right not to be tormented for eternity, whether you're good or even if you're "bad" "?

Where is the problem then?!
Is there anyone trying to negate this right that you think you have?
And if there are those who negate it: What are they to you?

Everything which exists has intrinsic value, whether recognized as such or not.

I think this is a statement a modern animist would make; however, without embedding this into the animistic belief system, the above statement is just nice lovey-dovey humanism, without much content.

I don't know of anything which exists which has absolutely no intrinsic value. One can absolutely refuse to acknowledge the value of matter but that doesn't change the fact that it has value, and certainly a sentient being would have value, and especially its eternal soul, whether recognized or not. It has value in itself regardless of how one chooses to classify it.

So you are trying to establish identity of an entity out of this entity itself, as if this entity created itself?

Things have value in themselves regardless of who acknowledges it.

This goes only if there are at least two observers who judge by the same standards.

 

[mis-t-highs]

Ask:
1. Who created the morals, who decides what is "morally proper"?
2. Is there anyone *above* the creator?

1 humanity
2 humanity

 

[robtex]

Jenyar, I feel that by taking out the math you are unquantifing what I quantified. I believe math is a natural aspect of the universe and that it has relevance in everything. I would love to believe that my Christian friends felt that free will was not a license to sin but I not sold on this idea in lew of Christians feeling that the following of God's will is righteous and holy and that free will is the opposition of following God which by default makes it sin. But in the same breath i realize that I cannot speak for what Christians believe..but my oberservations tempt me to this truth.

When you said, "God did not set out with percentations in mind, that's just ridiculous"
As ridiculuous as it does sound within the paradign of God is omnipotent and the believers to go Heaven the others to hell that is exactly what he does. If he knows all beforehand and judges some to heaven some to hell he does know the percentages. In the parterhood of an omnipotent God and heaven or hell becomes souls at life's earthly end pre-destination ( a common concept in Christianty) says that he knew all along from infancy until death.....and if he knows there is to know about yesterday today and tomarrow as was the creater of math than he does know the precentages up front. The paradign is incorrect as formulated above or he does, as you stated, the ridiculous.

I am very touched that you would share your paradise with a muslim. It would be joyous if as many muslims would be willing share their paradise with you too.

 

[Michael]

created lifeforms which could feel pain and were sentient, and that they could act good or evil, but lived for a very brief time. Do you believe that this lifeform itself has intrinsic value, that even the "bad" members of the species don't deserve to be kept alive and tormented for eternity, EVEN IF its creator doesn't recognize that right?

Yes, I agree no life from deserves to be physically tortured for any amount of time. It’s sick and twisted to worship a deity that promises to torment people who don’t lick its arse.

I suppose it was effective at controlling tribal peoples 8000 years ago. You’d think we’d have out grown it by now huh?

Anyway, think of some sick-o who owns a dog. This owner likes to have his foot licked by his dog. And hey, he gives the dog a pat for doing it huh? But the dog doesn’t want to lick this guy’s foot. So the owner determines the dog has “done bad” and takes it upon himself to torture the hapless dog by pouring gasoline over it a setting it alight.

Sick huh? Well, that’s the Xian God – a Dog killer . . .. (Hell he’s drowned them before so why not burn them as well)

One could say that there should be punishment for the "bad" members of the newly created lifeform, but for how long?

I think that’s for the society to determine. Who am I to say what the punishment should be? Let’s say these “sentient” being live in a PC. Isn’t it their choice as to how to effectively regulate their society? They live there after all.

The creator would have the POWER to do what he wants, but would it be "morally proper" for the creator to do absolutely whatever he wishes?

Not if the beings are sentient. (Isn’t this covered in every other StarTrek episode

And if not, how is it justified for the believers of the God of these two major monotheistic religions to essentially say that it's "morally proper" to put people in eternal hell?

They can not morally defend it.

They just say – YUP that’s what’ll happen and, well, you were warned so don’t complain when you burn in hell.

(they’re rather simplistic huh?)

What God wants does not make something "right", does it?

Actually I don’t think the Xian or Islamic God can “want” anything. ((Which is ever creepier when you think about it)).

What's actually "right" makes something "right", doesn't it?

Typically these are societal concerns. ie: one society may think marrying 4 women is right while another may prohibit it as wrong. OR one society may ban drinking alcohol while another sells it openly. Or prostitution or smoking pot etc., . . .

This goes back to the discussion I had with Jenyar where he said I was basically walking into hell, demanding my rights, and rejecting God at every step.

Yeah, this is the typical Xian scare campaign to get you give your control over to the church – as Jenyar has done.

 

[David F.]

Let's look at the two major religions which believe in an eternal hell, that is Christianity and Islam. Say, for instance, hypothetically, that one of us humans was God (yes, pure blasphemy, grin), instead of "God" being God. Say, that this human created lifeforms which could feel pain and were sentient, and that they could act good or evil, but lived for a very brief time. Do you believe that this lifeform itself has intrinsic value, that even the "bad" members of the species don't deserve to be kept alive and tormented for eternity, EVEN IF its creator doesn't recognize that right? One could say that there should be punishment for the "bad" members of the newly created lifeform, but for how long? The creator would have the POWER to do what he wants, but would it be "morally proper" for the creator to do absolutely whatever he wishes? And if not, how is it justified for the believers of the God of these two major monotheistic religions to essentially say that it's "morally proper" to put people in eternal hell? Might does not make right, does it? What God wants does not make something "right", does it? What's actually "right" makes something "right", doesn't it? This goes back to the discussion I had with Jenyar where he said I was basically walking into hell, demanding my rights, and rejecting God at every step. I could say that I have the intrinsic right not to be tormented for eternity, whether I'm good or even if I'm "bad", whether a deity respects that right or not.

This is just something I was thinking about and I'd like some input. Thanks.

The problem here is that you are an American - you believe you have rights.

Nothing is intrinsically right, nothing has intrinsic value, and you have no rights (at least not where God is concerned). The Atheists seem to truly understand their "religion" in that morals (without a God) are relative so nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Theists, on the other hand, believe that God is in charge - God makes the rules (exactly like a king). This means that whatever God says is right and whatever conflicts with what God says is wrong.

God doesn't have to make sense - it just happens that the Christian/Jewish God does make sense, and, at least most of the time, His rules seem to be logical. They don't have to, it's just luck for us that they do. The problem comes in when someone, like you, thinks that one of the rules doesn't make sense or isn't logical (like only having sex with your wife instead of with anyone you want). This doesn't mean God is wrong, only that you don't agree with him.

God is a king. If he wants to burn you in Hell for all time, then that is His right since you are His creation - it may not be nice, or appealing, but it is His right like it or not. You don't have any rights, you can't object other than to yell at the top of your lungs as you are dragged away (you can only yell if He permits it since even that could be taken away).

God is an all-powerful extra-terrestrial being (an alien if you will) who came to this planet and terra-formed it so that it would support life. He then made, as you say, insignificant little "human created lifeforms which could feel pain and were sentient, and that they could act good or evil, but lived for a very brief time". It is a little more than that since He put some of His spirit into them to see if it would grow, He planted and He is waiting for His crop to come in. He told us, though He didn't have to, that He would burn up the chaff and only keep the wheat.

I "think" that the idea of eternal punishment or an eternity in Hell is not well understood. I "think" that eternity actually refers to a place/existance without time - a place where eternity might be an instant or a trillion-trillion-trillion... years. I suspect (although I can't prove it) that the souls of those in Hell literally burn up in the lake of fire (I somehow doubt it is really fire but that is the closest to something we understand so that is how the picture is presented). Eternal punishment "might" be simply the eternal absence of the damned soul because it was burned up in Hell. I can't adequately talk about a place without time or independant of time because I don't fully understand what I am talking about - but I think your main complaint against God "might" be moot. There are a lot of "I think" and "might" statements here, but I "believe" without being sure that God will take care of this in a "humane" way (can I use the word "humane" when talking about God? Probably not.).

Matt 13:24-30
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up ? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. ​

I somehow think this means just what it says, the tares (those who refuse God) are burned up - they don't burn forever. (What does forever mean if there is no time?)

In any case, God/Yehovah is an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Massively-Intellegent, Energy-Based, Extra-Terrestrial, Cosmicly-Powerful, Space-Alien (Far Bigger and Badder than Q) who has, and will again, come with His un-numberable armies and conquer this little spec of a planet and annex it to be part of His Kingdom. Anyone who opposes Him will be burned and all who bow down and worship Him will be rewarded. I don't think I want to be on His bad side under any circumstances. Do you?

 

[Michael]

Hi David,

God doesn't have to make sense - it just happens that the Christian/Jewish God does make sense, and, …. God/Yehovah is an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, …

God makes sense huh . . . well well, per usual:

1) God is All Knowing
2) God is All Powerful (can do anything)

Could you answer these questions for me?

Can God NOT know something?
Can God learn something new?
Can God make a mistake?
Can God be wrong about something?
Can God think?
Can God make a round square out of a chopstick and not make ANY change to the chopstick?
Can God create a universe not created by God?

Can you do any of the things from the above list?

You see David F. God doesn't have to make sense - and as it happens the Christian/Jewish God doesn’t make sense, and, …. God/Yehovah can not be All-Powerful AND ALSO BE All-Knowing, … as you can see by aswering the above questions.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar, I feel that by taking out the math you are unquantifing what I quantified. I believe math is a natural aspect of the universe and that it has relevance in everything. I would love to believe that my Christian friends felt that free will was not a license to sin but I not sold on this idea in lew of Christians feeling that the following of God's will is righteous and holy and that free will is the opposition of following God which by default makes it sin. But in the same breath i realize that I cannot speak for what Christians believe..but my oberservations tempt me to this truth.

Well, you should resist the temptation - at least in regards to your perception of God. It's not Biblical, and it's not true. In fact, thinking that free will is in opposition to God's will amounts to relinquishing your responsibility of doing God's will. That doesn't mean it's a freedom that may be abused by sinning. I'll demonstrate:

Deut. 30
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live...
19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life...​

When you said, "God did not set out with percentations in mind, that's just ridiculous"
As ridiculuous as it does sound within the paradign of God is omnipotent and the believers to go Heaven the others to hell that is exactly what he does. If he knows all beforehand and judges some to heaven some to hell he does know the percentages. In the parterhood of an omnipotent God and heaven or hell becomes souls at life's earthly end pre-destination (a common concept in Christianty) says that he knew all along from infancy until death.....and if he knows there is to know about yesterday today and tomarrow as was the creater of math than he does know the precentages up front. The paradign is incorrect as formulated above or he does, as you stated, the ridiculous.

You're not talking about God anymore, but about "omnipotence". "Omnipotence" doesn't love or judge - it has no character and no personality - it just does whatever you think it should. From creating square circles to swapping heaven with hell, "omnipotence" is a kind of 'god by extension'. Everybody can use him for their purposes, and he will comply, because he is "omnipotent". On the other hand, a personal, decisive and choosing God is far more troublesome. He's not a free-for-all, which is why the percentages look like they do. Take you, me, and anonymous2 as representatives. Only one of us can believe in spite of hell. Only one of us puts himself at the mercy of a God who can send me to hell if He feels like it. Was I predestined to believe, or did I choose to?

There will always be conflict with a generic god who is supposed to do certain things (i.e. dance to our strings and fit in our boxes) and a God who is "wholly other" and foreign to us, who can only be known within a relationship. Michael's post above is an excellent example. It shows some of the forced conclusions it will drive you to make, and the limitations of anthopomorphic models.

From my perspective, it seems that freedom was predestined - life and destruction are choices. And both choices have guaranteed results. Just look at your own arguments: they are arguments that assume you're being forced or coerced - that's what you really have problems with. You want your bread buttered on both sides.

I am very touched that you would share your paradise with a muslim. It would be joyous if as many muslims would be willing share their paradise with you too.

Then you should be touched that God doesn't make superficial destinctions either. It's not my paradise, after all.

It's not your label that says who you are, or what you've chosen - although it does declare what you've decided. Decisions can be for God or against Him, and that will decide where you stand with Him.

 

[David F.]

Hi David, God makes sense huh . . . well well, per usual:

1) God is All Knowing
2) God is All Powerful (can do anything)

Could you answer these questions for me?

Can God NOT know something?
Can God learn something new?
Can God make a mistake?
Can God be wrong about something?
Can God think?
Can God make a round square out of a chopstick and not make ANY change to the chopstick?
Can God create a universe not created by God?

Can you do any of the things from the above list?

You see David F. God doesn't have to make sense - and as it happens the Christian/Jewish God doesn’t make sense, and, …. God/Yehovah can not be All-Powerful AND ALSO BE All-Knowing, … as you can see by aswering the above questions.

This betrays a misconception. God IS, whether I know these answers or not. God made me, not visa-versa. People tend to think God is contain in their understanding of Him - much as the Greek gods were contained by the throughts and understandings of the Greeks. The Christian/Jewish God, Yehovah, is not bound by my or your understanding.

The answer to all your questions is that God can do anything but lie (I'm not sure He can't lie, He has just said that He will not - I have no choice but to trust). God has given us a book of His word so we may know a little about Him - certainly not everything. The question should be - Why would The Great God, The Ancient of Days, be anything but slightly amused by your silly little questions?

 

[David F.]

I find it interesting that, on a Religion Forum, instead of discussing Religion, those who have a religion are instead defending the fact that they have a religion against those who despise all religion. The obvious answer for those who have a religion - theists - is to return the attack to those self-worshipping so-called atheists (the best defense is a good offense) but that in itself would also defeat the purpose of this forum - to discuss religion. Further, it seems the atheists are taking advantage of the good will and turn-the-other-cheek beliefs of theists, not to discuss any substantive issues, but simply to exploit and criticise - just for criticisms' sake. The Athiests have nothing of their own to offer, they only seek to tare down what they do not understand - Get a Life!

 

[MarcAC]

2) God is All Powerful (can do anything)

Woooa there Archangel. All powerful doesn't mean can do anything. It means can do anything which is possible. I don't see where anything in the meaning of all powerful implies doing the logically impossible. I would also ask the question; 'Is God amused by such a silly statement?'.

 

[mis-t-highs]

All powerful doesn't mean can do anything. It means can do anything which is possible. I don't see where anything in the meaning of all powerful implies doing the logically impossible.

god cant do the impossible so therefore he never created life or the universe.
Lol:I would also ask the question; 'Is God amused by such a silly statement?'

free will remains a question to which only God has the answer. In other words is it possible? Or is it like creating a square circle? Only God knows.

how would god know, he cant do the impossible.? Lol:

 

[MarcAC]

god cant do the impossible so therefore he never created life or the universe.

Huh?

 

[Michael]

This betrays a misconception.

Oh, there is no misconception betrayed. I think you meant to write: This reveals a truth. God as ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING makes no sense. God makes no sense. Nonsensical things don’t exist. There are no Gods.

God IS, whether I know these answers or not

I just asked you to give me an answer of what you think. Apparently you don’t like to think?

God made me, not visa-versa

Yeah, so what? You still don’t like to think.

People tend to think God is contain in their understanding of Him - much as the Greek gods were contained by the throughts and understandings of the Greeks.

Again, so what, I asked you a few simply questions of God. I didn’t say God was contained by this or that. I asked a few questions of God and yet you seem to be to worried you might learn something to answer them.

Anyway David, you said God was all powerful and all knowing – not me.

The answer to all your questions is that God can do anything but

Oh good, you’re making an attempt but to make sure we’re on the same page could you just go through the list placing a yes at the end of each question.

God has given us a book of His word so we may know a little about Him - certainly not everything.

Which book would that be? When was it given? How did it come about? Who wrote it? When was it written? Are there any mistakes in it?

Why would The Great God, The Ancient of Days, be anything but slightly amused by your silly little questions?

Here watch: This is called an answer, I’d appreciate the same courtesy from you regarding my questions. David, why come to a religious forum and not participate by responding properly to questions about God?

Why would God be slightly amused? As God can not think God can not be amused David. Using your own information of God I can tell you straight up, according YOU, God knows all and therefore God can not by definition be amused. Amused occurs when one learns some information and thinks it’s funny. God can not do that so God can not be amused. So the answer is: God is never amused. God has no emotions. As you have defined God, I’d rather liken Him to a big Computer Hard drive in the sky.

Your comments about the Greeks sounded almost disdainful. Funny that? Given that Greece is considered the birthplace of Western culture. Ironically, similarly to today – many educated Greeks realized there were no Gods. I can see why you don’t want to think about God – if you do - you may realize it’s all bullshaeet like we have

David, I’m sure you’re a nice guy but if you’re not the ideal case study for brainwashing in its entirely then I don’t know what is? To set aside your entire faculties of reason and intellect all for some promise of getting to live after you die, now THAT’S scary to me.