I got a few hypothetical questions..

[water]

The math is accurate. About 33 % of the population is Christian. If one contends that people are more bad than good than at least (bare minimum) 51 % of the people are good. If the only way to get into Heaven is to accept Jesus (being a Christian) than 67 (non christians) minus 51 percent (good people)=16 % get damned per lifetime. It is a very simple equation based on the notions of

33 % are christian
at least 51 % are good
only way into heaven is jesus (thus 67 % don't make the cut).

First of all, this equation is seriously flawed. It supposes that *all* Christians will go to heaven (?!); the 51 % being "good" is an unsupportable estimate; the 33 %~Christian and 51 %~good ratios suggest that Christians aren't good ...

Secondly, you are presuming that *everyone* wants to go to Heaven (in Christian terms), or that Heaven is *the* desirable place to be. This is an odd an usupported assumption -- what do you do with the millions of Hindus, Buddhists etc.? I don't think they have any particular conceptions about Christian Heaven.

Thirdly, it seems that you think or wish that *everyone* *should* come to Heaven and nobody be damned. Is that so?

What i am not rejecting is the idea there is a God. The post does not say therefore there is no God. The arguement is not a arguement against his existance.

I never said that you are rejecting the idea of God's existence. The issue here is not the veracity of God's existence (I think we have agreed so far that God does exist), the issue here is the *mode* of God's existence.

I am rejecting the idea that belief in Jesus is the way to-whatever happens-after-you-die based on the notion that in order for that to be correct God would have to condem good (rightous) souls which is in contradiction for a good natured loving God.

Hold right there! You are not talking about just *any* generic god. As soon as you bring up Heaven and Jesus, you are thinking of the Christian God. YHWH is not the same as Allah, for example. We therefore have to address the issue in the sphere of a specific God, within the religion worshipping him, be it YHWH or Allah, or Baal, or whomever, we can't deal with a generic god.

This "to-whatever happens-after-you-die" will probably happen to you, no matter what you believe.

What you *hope* this "to-whatever happens-after-you-die" would be, depends on what you believe, which religion you follow.

If you are not Christian, then I don't see why you would consider wanting to come to Christian Heaven.

Or are you thinking of some "generic Heaven"?

I am not sure what you mean by unfair? But the reason I presented the arugment is that I would contend that the morally righteous are in fact closer to God even if they don't get "the message" right or don't have a theory that approximates reality. I would say that a moral athiest is closer to what is divine than an amoral Christian or amoral Muslim who guessed/predicted/hypothized the closest to the nature of the divine but was not kind/benevolent/accepting loving or moral to his fellow man.

As far as I know, God will judge, so says Christianity (and I think Islam too). Merely *saying* that you are Christian will not get you into Heaven, as far as I know.
Thereore, arguing from the point that a religion says that "simply belonging to the "right" religion ensures you a place in Heaven" is flawed.

As for who is closer to God: This really is not up to us to say, is it?! We are not God and we don't know what he knows, so any argument like "I would say that a moral athiest is closer to what is divine ..." is flawed, as it presumes the one making this argument has divine knowledge.

On top of it: Why would you want to come to Christian Heaven, if you don't believe in the Christian God? Of what value is Christian Heaven to you, if Christianity is of no or little value to you?

Morality is the link to the universe and God not accurate alignment to a set dogma in my estimation.

*In your estimation.* So where is the problem then? You are clinging to your estimation, Christians are clinging to theirs, Muslims are clinging to theirs ...

Mathematic is just a way to describe certain phenomena; it is not the only way. .
Point taken..throw out a different theory based on that statement or with your mathimatical intrepretation please.

See above, and elsewhere in this forum, Christianity has been explained many times here, for example.

 

[David F.]

To all those discussing God's omniscience, I would like to hear some concise answers:


What does it matter if God knows everything?
What consequences does this knowing everything supposedly have for us?

Here Here... It makes no difference at all. Since the Bible doesn't say, perhaps we should not say.

 

[MarcAC]

Thinking is only dangerous when you’re afraid of changing your views, as is blatantly obvious in your case. Now your limiting the supposedly limitless god of yours to knowledge of only actual things. What is actual?
actual
adj.
Existing and not merely potential or possible
So you’re saying that god cannot know what’s potential or possible? Sounds rather limited to me, because as a "puny human" even I can know what is possible but god can't?

If you review my post, you will see that it stated "can be translated into actual things". That automatically includes what is possible... and regarding 'possible'... see below...

Now tell me, why should I believe?

I can only tell you this; search for God as hard as you can by every means available to you, because if God does indeed exist, the implications are as important as, if not far beyond the importance of the 100 or so years you have before you leave this existence.

• CEV
• Deuteronomy 4:29 "But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.
  "
• Jeremiah 29:13 "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."
• Luke 11:9-10 "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."
• Acts 17:26-28 "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'"

If there is any confusion over grammar it's caused by your lack of clarity. You state that god can only do things that are possible. Who is it that is defining what is possible, you? So if I asked you if god could create a ship that could travel faster than the speed of light, you would say no? Just because most people think it's impossible doesn't mean that in the future it can't be done. You seem to be trying to limit god to your own knowledge and I'm wondering why. If I say the statement "god knows..", wouldn't you agree no matter what I say then god knows it? God knows sdkjalsfdjasdfa. God knows *makes thumping sound on desk*. It might not mean anything to you and I but wouldn't god know? So why can't I ask the simple question in my last post?

Do you realise what you have stated here? I do hope everyone (especially tha atheists) read this stellar post. You see, you base your argument on the whole concept of what you see as logically possible then you seem to want to refute the basis of the argument you started with?

Again possible to who, you? And if god cannot do the impossible I'm not impressed, because if there is an all powerful, all knowing supreme being, are you telling me he is stopped in his place by a 10 letter word in one language on one planet in one galaxy?

Absolutely amazing. This whole post is a huge double edged sword. Thank you for it! So finally we are here. As David F. hinted in his post some ways back... who's right is it to state what is possible and what isn't?. If it is not my right to state possibility with regards to how I see it, it certainly cannot be yours. In fact ONLY GOD knows what is possible because GOD DEFINES WHAT IS POSSIBLE!. Thus you have effectively voided the whole lengthy discussion. Thank you. I do hope you don't (in all honesty with yourself) regress to the defence of such an argument as possibility with regards to God. God is above and beyond any logical tripe or trap that we can ever try to come up with. I have nothing more to discuss with you on this issue.

 

[MarcAC]

Could you explain their meaning to us?

Though you do seem to show a lack of aptitude towards grammar, I will encourage you to help yourself there Arch.

I wrote: MarcAC, so you can do things God CAN NOT do? Is that true?
MarcAC asked: Where'd I state that?

In response to my question: Can God make a mistake?
You wrote: No

With regards to possibility, again; God can do anything which is possible... now is it logically possible for our omnipotent creator, God, to make a mistake? No it doesn't seem possible (I encourage you to read the Matrix' post... and even my response). You see my point? You are asking if God can not be God? Is that possible? Similar to all the silly trick questions you have come up with.

As we know humans make mistakes (I’m guessing you’re human) therefore according to you, you can do something God can not do. In terms of possibility of make mistakes you have it and God doesn’t!

Will you re-read your statement? So I have a possibility? Again you overlook what is possible and what isn't.

That’s funny because just one second ago you worte that God the ALL POWERFUL can not make a mistake. Now your saying what God can not do cannot be done?...

Exactly! Because God defines what is possible! Now it is not possible for God to make a mistake (as defined). The realm of possibility excludes that as an option. Of course, as I've stated before, possibility is not a thing (so please don't try to encourage poeple to worship possibility). Repeat: God defines what is possible! Do you see the point? God is God. You can say God is 'self contained' (self contained is not a thing either) if you wish. God has no beginning, God has no end. God defines God. Indeed, mistakes do happen, but that still doesn't work.

This was dealing with God as a concept. What limits the “God” concept? According to you it’s the “Possibility” concept!! Therefore, possibility (as a concept) is above God. Woohoo Marc thanks for that Grammatical Instruction I think you just Grammatically omitted God

If such card tricks had any substance to them there would not be so many theistic intellectuals in the world today. I like to call them cheats. It seems we were discussing on totallty different wavelengths then. I see God as an actual thing, while you see God as a concept - a possibility - interesting isn't it? Possibility does not limit God. Repeated from above: God is the source of all thee is. God limits himself (as far as my understanding goes).

PS: This was in jest.

Really? O.k.

Anyway the joke occurred to me when thinking of a response to your defining God as not having the ability to do the logically impossible.
Funny huh?

When I state the logically impossible, I mean that which is impossible as God would define it (whatever that is). Refer a few paragraphs up.

Do we agree? God can not learn something new? That God does indeed know ALL there is to know?

YES or NO?

Yes, but as someone else referred in their post, (David F. I think)? God creates. Also, God created. God knows God's creation. God's creation is not static now is it (H.U.P and Copenhagen Interpretation and Schrodinger - Quantum Mechanics in short)? Science provides a wonderful possibble answer to your problem. I think I stated it somewhere else. The fact that God's knowledge spans all time and as we see things now they are uncertain, but in the future they are certain. So as God has his creation in 'mind'... or 'thoughts' - you can infer that the 'mind' of God is indeed not static. I won't even use the word think. I would advise you to honestly sit and think about that. Aresn't you interested in some form of truth? Or do you just believe there is no truth (you don't need to answer)?

God defines possiblity. Who am I to say what is possible? I've had enough card tricks for now. I have nothing more to discuss with you Arch. See you in the afterlife... maybe.

 

[MarcAC]

To all those discussing God's omniscience, I would like to hear some concise answers:


What does it matter if God knows everything?
What consequences does this knowing everything supposedly have for us?

None - regardless, God Is. Point taken.

 

[robtex]

Rose the equation is not flawed.
It is accurated based on the follwing assumptions all of which Christians generally accept as true and valid


First part
1) going to heaven (which is to say being closer to God), happens when one accpets Jesus as their personal savior and his sacrifce on the cross That is the theroy behind orginal sin. One does not get into heaven by being virtuous, good, caring, or community oriented. The only way in is to accept Christ.

2) No other religion other than Christanity accepts Christ as the savior, which mean according to current Christian thinking they will not go to heaven upon death but instead to hell (there are only two choices in Christanity).

3) Roughly 33 % of the population is Christian That means rougly 67 % is not and will not be saved and thus will go to hell.


As a footnote in Christanity all the Christians are saved regardless of deed. That is the belief of orginal sin. It not the life you live but the DOGMA you believe. That is the structure of their religion.

Second part:

1) 51 % of the people are good. This is going on the assumption that the world is made up of more good people than bad. I would be more inclinded to think it is around 85-90 % of people are good but I went with the most conservative number avaliable while still attesting to the concept that more people are good, caring righteous, loving ect than not. 51 is the lowest number of people who can be good for one who accepts the notion that the world has more good people in it than bad.

third part

1) based on the above info that according to Christanity only Christians will be saved and the others 100 % -33 % =67 % people today will be damn to hell

2) If the world is more good than bad, which makes the minium requirement for mankind at 51% and 67 % of the world populations (ie not Christians) are going to hell..than 67-51=16 equal the minimum percentage of the population of virtuous people who are dammned to hell for following a dogma, or no dogma that was different than their own.

Because God is benevolent loving and just I propose that inbelief as Jesus as a savior is not a ticket to hell. It is incongruent to think that 1) God is loving 2) God makes souls 3) God kills off 67 % (by damnation to hell) of which at least 16 % are virtuous for getting his dogma wrong.

In direct answer to your questions..Every theist and deists most likly would like to be closer to God. Heaven is an anology of such.

51 % is supportable if you feel mankind is more good than bad in totality. If not tell my why mankind is more bad than good

I don't believe in Heaven but I see Heaven as another such allegory as being closer to God. I believe the being closer to God is being loving, caring, supportive of others in a communial sense, respectful to nature, and happy in spirt and that that happens here on earth..but ...if there was a heaven than I would think that actions speak louder than words (ie dogma again) and that should be a heavier factor than one religious affiliation

If you change "whatever happens-after-you-die" to heaven than and the same holds true. Condemnation based on dogma while knowing that well under 1/2 of the souls created by the God are getting a ticket to eternal hell is not the actions of a loving God.

Generic heaven=being closer to God. It is an allegory to being closer to that which is divine.

What I am specfically refuting with my post is the notion that God creates 100 % of souls and than sends 67 % to hell for eternity because they got the dogma wrong. I refute it because God is benevolent and for him to create a set # of souls and than kick 67 % to hell is not benevolent and even less so since some set number of those soul belong to loving caring people that had a Dogma differnt than Christians.

And actually I had better be right on this otherwise I am going to hell too....If you find out another truth where Christian Dogma is the big ticket let me know..cause boy have I got some repenting to do!!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

robtex: The math is accurate. About 33% of the population is Christian.
*************
M*W: Good afternoon, robtex, I want to comment on 33% of the world's Christian population. The adherents study was done in 2002. Since even before 2002, Christianity started experiencing a worldwide decline in membership. I believe the 33% is about 4% deviation either way due to the decline. I'm speaking of those who answered the poll, possibly the churches rather than individuals, and I believe these data to be skewed in favor of Christian responses. We really don't know how many respondents beefed up their rosters, and I mean by this, those people who 'claim' to be Christian and those who 'practice' the religion. That would include the natural attrition of 'members' of any Christian church who responded to the study. Christianity Today has done a study as well, and as a group of councils or synods or whatever they're called, they are beefing up their missionary presence and doing more 'advertising' at least in this country, because a lot of christian churches have reached rock bottom. I see this everyday in my city of 4 million people. So the question, then, is who are and how many of these people are calling themselves 'Christians' but never go to church nor even live a Christian life? Are they included in that 33%? I believe they are. Therefore, I believe that 33% Christian population is more accurately stated to be as low as 25% and as high as 29% of the world's population.
*************
robtex: If one contends that people are more bad than good than at least (bare minimum) 51% of the people are good.
*************
M*W: I believe that humans are innately good, and that only 2% of the world's population could be considered, shall we say, deviant. I'm not including people who get traffic tickets or say those who live just above the law. The 2% of the world's population who are truly evil -- the terrorists, the baby killers, child molesters, rapists, etc., comprise that 2%. There are a lot of people who 'aren't nice' but that doesn't put them in the truly deviant category. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I believe people are basically good.
*************
robtex: If the only way to get into Heaven is to accept Jesus (being a Christian) than 67 (non christians) minus 51 percent (good people)=16% get damned per lifetime.
*************
M*W: Okay, now here's where the statistics, whatever they may be, cannot be verified. Does anyone out there, Christian or not, have proof that there is a heaven? If we're talking statistics, we're dealing with real numbers. Heaven can only be included if it's an actual place, but no one knows that. Christians believe heaven to be a real place, so for at least the Christians, we will assume heaven exists. So, if we take the 25-29%, let's say we average it to 27% worldwide Christian population who are honest and sincere practicing Christians will go to heaven, they believe. That leaves 73% of non-Christian worldwide population. I won't include whether these non-Christian religions believe in heaven or not. Of the remaining 73% of the world's population (this includes the Christians who don't practice but still call themselves Christians) and (atheists, agnostics, non-religious, and secular who are non-Christians), there is a variation of 2% truly evil people in the world, I believe. That leaves 71% of the worlds population plus the Christian population of 27% totalling 98% non-evil people in the world. That leaves the evil 2% out of this equation. That leaves 71% of the world's population of good people. Heaven cannot be included in this equation because we simply do not know how big heaven is, or where it is, or how long it would take to get there, so it is an unknown. Further, 71% of the world's population could simply not believe in heaven, but, again, those statistics are not relevant here. Christians believe only they get into their own heaven. So, for the remaining 71% of the world's population, perhaps they also have their own heavens, which, for this purpose is also an unknown. Again, 98% of the world's population is too good to go to hell. Hell will also not be included in these statistics because we don't know where hell is, we don't know how many people hell would hold, and we don't know how far it is to get to hell. Since hell would be constantly burning these souls, I would assume hell could be refueled on a constant basis with the two-percenters, so there would be no having to wait in long lines to get into hell. So, our statistics only include the knowns: 1) whole population of the world; 2) Christians; 3) all non-Christians; 4) the good people; 5) the evil people; 6) heaven; 7) hell.
*************
robtex: It is a very simple equation based on the notions of

33% are christian
at least 51% are good
only way into heaven is jesus (thus 67% don't make the cut).
*************
M*W: My equation is as follows:

27% are Christian
at least 71% are good
at least 2% are evil
only way into heaven is Jesus (thus 71% won't make the cut).
*************
robtex: I am rejecting the idea that belief in Jesus is the way to-whatever happens-after-you-die based on the notion that in order for that to be correct God would have to condem good (rightous) souls which is in contradiction for a good natured loving God.
*************
M*W: Yes, I agree. If there is a god that created us, but only, say, 27% of our population is 'saved,' that would make our creator an evil bastard, seeing as how there are good people in the remaining 71% on non-Christians. However, I don't believe humanity was created by an evil bastard since we are basically good people. Now, on the other hand, if the concept of god was created by 98% of good humans, why in hell would we create an evil bastard for a god? That leaves the remaining 2% of truly evil people in the world. Did they create god? If they created god, he would still be an evil bastard. So this brings the question, who created god? Did god create heaven or hell, or did we? If this is the case, why would humanity be so self-destructive? Perhaps, there is no god at all. Then we created the whole concept of a higher power. We created god! You are what you create. Does this god we created really exist? Only in our minds. Do heaven and hell really exist? Only in our minds. Does salvation exist for every human being? Only in our minds.

 

[SnakeLord]

Just wanted to correct an error made by Jenyar earlier on:

When God comes down to check things out

In the instance of the tower of babel, as mentioned in your post, god didn't go down - all the gods did. Some of us take the bible as accurate, and are not ignorant enough to consider god that foolish that he would speak in plurals to himself, (i.e "Come, let us go down..")

And to RosaMagika:

What does it matter if God knows everything?
What consequences does this knowing everything supposedly have for us?

I would say it matters a great deal. You kick the bucket and go up to the pearly gates, and unexpected to you god turns round and says "Who are you?".

 

[water]

Generic heaven=being closer to God. It is an allegory to being closer to that which is divine.

What I am specfically refuting with my post is the notion that God creates 100 % of souls and than sends 67 % to hell for eternity because they got the dogma wrong. I refute it because God is benevolent and for him to create a set # of souls and than kick 67 % to hell is not benevolent and even less so since some set number of those soul belong to loving caring people that had a Dogma differnt than Christians.

Ther goes your inconsitency:

You talk about a GENERIC heaven, but the God you have in mind is the CHRISTIAN God. You are mixing things up.

GENERIC heaven is for those believing in a GENERIC God,

CHRISTIAN heaven is for those believing in the CHRISTIAN God.


Yet you are arguing against the Christian God (for not being some generic god), but what you want is not some generic heaven, but Christian heaven.

You want Christian heaven, but you don't want the Christian God.


Make up your mind!

 

[water]

I would say it matters a great deal. You kick the bucket and go up to the pearly gates, and unexpected to you god turns round and says "Who are you?".

So you do believe in the Christian God and Christian heaven??

 

[SnakeLord]

I don't believe in either, regardless to which religious demonination puts their name at the front of it. Why do you ask?

I have this gut feeling that you're going to say "well if you don't believe in it, why would it matter?", to which I can only respond that I don't believe in Klingons either, but I'm still more than happy to debate on a Star Trek forum, and especially so when someone dares claim that Klingons do actually exist.

From this point, a whole host of questions emerge such as: If klingons exist, why haven't they visited earth? If Klingons exist, does that mean James T Kirk also exists? If Klingons exist are they at war with the Romulans? And so on.

It doesn't mean it matters, they're merely questions aimed towards the person who considers it all true with nothing to back up their claims.

You and I have only spoken a couple of times, but I can see from those brief encounters that your main statement seems to run along the lines of "Why does it matter?"

While the answer can and will differ from person to person, it is not of worth to take that it matters to mean that they believe it.

 

[robtex]

Rose, you are looking at what I said backwards. It is not about what I see...it is about the reverse-what Christians see when they look at non-christians...they see a damn soul here on earth and they can either a) help save it b) leave it to be damned.

I am saying that the God who has multiple intrepretatons as to the nature of his existance could not be benevolent and encompassing of love while damning a good percentage of souls based on dogma.

It is not about my god your god her god his god....it is about the general intrepreations of most religions including christanity as seeing their God as benevolent good and righteous yes the Christian belief that he sacrifces and condems souls annully based on dogma. I am confused as to why a loving beneovent God would do that...

you have a theory on it?

 

[Michael]

God defines possiblity. Who am I to say what is possible? I've had enough card tricks for now. I have nothing more to discuss with you Arch. See you in the afterlife... maybe.

MarcAC the questions are not card tricks they are just simple questions after all.

What I think is bothering you, and hence the “card trick” label, is that you are starting to see the “light” so to speak. You now realize your belief isn’t as simple as it once was. This is why Theists will tell you repeatedly not to debate with Atheists. Go ahead – ask your church head. They know that once you start to think rationally and logically about God you’ll soon start to realize that saying something like ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING doesn’t make sense. And by saying God can only do the possible (as you indicated) starts down the road of reason – which is the last place the Church wants a Sheep for sure! Soon you’ll come to another fork in the road concerning omniscience and omnipotence and omnipresence and then you’ll look into the history of the Bible as it relates to the copied religions before it and as you venture further you’ll take fork after fork until you're finally straight in hell, bwaaaa haaa haa hahahaha. . .

See you in the afterlife... maybe.

Seriously though, the reason part of your brain just had an argument with the washed part . . it's OK I'll see you in Hell my friend

 

[okinrus]

Michael, it has not been conclusively decided amongst theist what the terms "all powerful" and "all knowing" mean. But omnipotence has traditionally meant that God is capable of doing everything that is logically well defined and doesn't contradict his nature.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

okinrus: Michael, it has not been conclusively decided amongst theist what the terms "all powerful" and "all knowing" mean. But omnipotence has traditionally meant that God is capable of doing everything that is logically well defined and doesn't contradict his nature.
*************
M*W: Please explain God's nature.

 

[okinrus]

God's nature is the qualities that God has, fairness, hope, love, etc.

 

[Michael]

Michael, it has not been conclusively decided amongst theist what the terms "all powerful" and "all knowing" mean. But omnipotence has traditionally meant that God is capable of doing everything that is logically well defined and doesn't contradict his nature.

Your telling me that over the last 5000 years the two fundamental aspects of God have not been conclusively decided amongst theist?

Well, what do you think of each?

It seems, to me, that just in the discussions we’ve had here that it is impossible for God to do the illogical and from our past discussions in order for “free will” to exist (lets not go there) all knowing is out the window as well.

I think TheMatrixIsRea’s fine post sums it up: the two must be mutually exclusive.

So what does that leave us with? A god that isn’t all knowing (thus trapped in time like the rest of us poor sobs). And God may posses possible powerful but not be impossibly powerful. Perhaps that is the very reason this subject is taboo to theists – once they head down this line of investigation God suddenly doesn’t seem so Godly.

Also, do you think that God can have emotions (ie: hate, love, etcetera).

Do you think God changes?

 

[SnakeLord]

God's nature is the qualities that God has, fairness, hope, love, etc.

Jealousy, anger, wrath etc.. Why did you forget to include them?

 

[Michael]

God's nature is the qualities that God has, fairness, hope, love, etc.

wouldn’t vengeance, wrath, hate, etcetera also fit with God MO?

 

[water]

Rose, you are looking at what I said backwards. It is not about what I see...it is about the reverse-what Christians see when they look at non-christians...they see a damn soul here on earth and they can either a) help save it b) leave it to be damned.

No, I'm not looking at it backwards. You are tweaking the whole story in a manner that it would serve your purpose.

What does it matter to you what Christians think of you? Are you afraid to oppose them? You need to learn something: Those people who proclaim themselves to be good people, are not good people. And it is stupid to put it against such people that they aren't good!

And how is this not about what you see?!? You must have a reason for talking about Christianity the way you do.

For comparison, let us see what one could have to say against the philosophy of Nazism, for example. There, one of the dogmatic beliefs is that one is condemned to exile and eventually death if one is not of the right race. Nazism considered itself to be a superior philosophy.

Two crucial similarities with Christianity can be seen: 1. an exclusionary dogma, 2. the belief that one's belief is right above all others. As far as I know, most existing religions and other belief systems bear these two characteristics, including yours.
You seem to be certain of 2, and as far as 1 is concerned, your exclusionary dogma is that nobody deserves to be punished -- there should be no justice.

I am saying that the God who has multiple intrepretatons as to the nature of his existance could not be benevolent and encompassing of love while damning a good percentage of souls based on dogma.

Why not? If you don't obey the law, face the consequences. This is how laws work.

The only question is whether you consider yourself to be obliged to this law, or not.

It is not about my god your god her god his god....it is about the general intrepreations of most religions including christanity as seeing their God as benevolent good and righteous yes the Christian belief that he sacrifces and condems souls annully based on dogma. I am confused as to why a loving beneovent God would do that...

Yes, so? Where is the problem? So religion Z sees its God as "benevolent, good and righteous" and "condemning those who don't believe in the Z dogma". This is how it works, usually, yes.
It is the basis of all justice: A differentiation has to made between those who follow the rules and those who don't. Or there can be no concept of justice.

You seem to think that anyone, no matter what they have done, should be spared by this "benevolent, good and righteous" God. If so, then there can be no justice.
Is this what you want -- no justice?

you have a theory on it?

Yes, and it goes: "Don't blame believers for your own unbelief, don't blame God for your unbelief."


***

I don't believe in either, regardless to which religious demonination puts their name at the front of it. Why do you ask?

Why I ask? See below:

I have this gut feeling that you're going to say "well if you don't believe in it, why would it matter?", to which I can only respond that I don't believe in Klingons either, but I'm still more than happy to debate on a Star Trek forum, and especially so when someone dares claim that Klingons do actually exist.

So you are discussing for discussion's sake? With no actual goal in mind?

It doesn't mean it matters, they're merely questions aimed towards the person who considers it all true with nothing to back up their claims.

I dare you to prove that the name you have is truly your real name! Whatever documents you produce, know that I could always insist that they are forgeries, *no matter* what you do. Eventually, you have nothing to back up your claims, if I meet you with the attitude that whatever you produce as evidence is forgery.
If you, in advance, decide that you are not going to believe someone, no matter what they do, nothing could make you believe them.

You and I have only spoken a couple of times, but I can see from those brief encounters that your main statement seems to run along the lines of "Why does it matter?"

While the answer can and will differ from person to person, it is not of worth to take that it matters to mean that they believe it.

It is not of worth to take that it matters to mean that they believe it?

If religion is something of a certain relevance to you, then you take it seriously and the whole argument isn't yet another discussion there to merely fill the time.
Unless you cherish futility.


***

Basically he knows what he's going to do but cannot change it.
/.../
If god knows everything that means he knows what actions he will take. If he knows what actions he will take then he is bound to those actions and cannot deviate from them. Since he cannot deviate from them he is not all powerful.

This does not follow.

It would be as you say *only* if God would be as fallible as a human, making mistakes.

You are assuming divine knowledge and being above God, if you think that God makes mistakes. I don't see how you can support that.