Since our notions of good and evil are different from and infinitly inferior to God's, is is possible that evil was created by God so as to spark good results. God's will is present in all things, and He is everywhere (including Hell), and with divine foresight He knows the result of all things...

After all, God did create Satan, and if He is omniscient, then He had to know the result of such a creation. Also, He did give Satan the Earth so as to lure man from His divinity.

--------

Satan, in effect, is God's tool, like a pruning hook or a hoe that he uses to cultivate his garden. The hoe takes pleasure in destroying the weeds for its own purpose, but cannot work without the hand of God or weed where He does not wish, or thwart His purpose of building a beautiful garden.

In this sense, Satan is God: the Devil could not exist if God did not create him; the Devil would not be evil if God had not willed him to be so; the Devil could not work evil if God did not all him to do so...

Since God turns Satan's every effort to the good, God does good not in spite of the Devil, but in and through the Devil, and God is Himself present in the devil (as he is present in all His creation).

That´s a very common theory. There is no good without evil and vice versa.
It is, like all other theories a likely possibility.

Somehow reminds me of Goethe´s Dr Faust. :)

That is presuming God is 'good' and Satan is 'evil'. God is not good and God is not evil. All other variations of the statement are heresy. Period.

That is presuming God is 'good' and Satan is 'evil'. God is not good and God is not evil. All other variations of the statement are heresy. Period.


This is presuming god exists in order to be good, evil, or neutral in the first place. ;)

God is not good and God is not evil.

Or God is good and God is Evil. The "idea" of God presumes that He must be all things.

So god is a schizo? or a frat boy with a mean streak just playing with us?

This is presuming god exists in order to be good, evil, or neutral in the first place. ;)

God is neither good, evil, or neutral "in the first place". That would be placing an infinite being into a category which is paradoxical. ;)

Perhaps there are more than one gods?

But in this case, if god created everything, like religion said he did. He is bound to have created evil. If he created it in form of Satan or if he himself is evil is of no consequence. It may be possible that god has in himself good and evil like we humans have. After all, in a biblical sense, we were created like him.

After all, god (the christian one) annihilated whole cities because he was displeased with their behaviour. Doesn´t this make god evil?

But I really like this theme. I suppose no one ever read the aforementioned "Faust" written by Goethe? In this theatre play, Goethe shows this dualism.
Mephisto always works evil, but god tolerates him, for without evil, god could do no good things.

In Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, the same idea is addressed with the satirical religion Bokonism.

Bokonon was the prophet and this other guy was the oppressive leader. The oppressive leader pushed more people to Bokonon, and the further Bokonon was squleched, the further it grew.

God sort of needs a devil, or the devil needs god?

It would seem so, without a devil, god´s deeds would not be good, therefore they would perhaps not be seen as very extraordinary. Also it gives the followers of a religion a certain motivation to do good. It also is more convenient for a religion to sport a god and a devil, otherwise the people would perhaps not pray to a god who creates and destroys out of a whim. They can always put the blame on the negative player.

I've always found the idea of God to be oppressive. All the shit that happens is His fault, ultimately. It'd be idiotically pointless not to agree with that. He's infinitely everything, so he should be able to stop all the crap that goes on, like floods and death and famine and hate and the like, but He doesn't.
If you have the power to stop something, and don't, it's your fault, is it not?

Supposedly, as some religios guys claim, god bestowed freedom upon mankind. Of course that makes everything that happens between us humans his fault. But he gave us a choice. How we employ our freedom is thus our problem, and god is not neccessraily blamed for this. Alas, there is always the aspect of an "evil" nature, catastrophes and all that, which cannot altogether be blamed upon mankind. This is where in some religions an evil counterpart comes in. In others, it is just the way things are.

I would not presume to know how some things are justified by people who have faith and beliefs.
I have the same sentiments that you have Roman, that´s why I am not a religios man.

I'm curious for an explanation for those who were not exposed to, and do not have, the proper Christian behaviour.

For instance, the Aztecs. Since they behaved in a way contrary to Jesus, but were not given a Jesus (unless you're Mormon and believe there were chariots in the New World before Europeans brought horses), how does God judge them? He cannot judge based on either faith nor works.

What about people who are born without morality, like serial killers? Are they automatically sentenced to eternal damnation at the moment of conception?

That would be interesting, I also suffered under a christian upbringing, until I was old enough to think for myself and see all the faults in christian beliefs.
There are non christians (perhaps non Islamic would also be good because of some parallels) on this board, I hope they respond.

Perhaps there are more than one gods?

But in this case, if god created everything, like religion said he did. He is bound to have created evil. If he created it in form of Satan or if he himself is evil is of no consequence. It may be possible that god has in himself good and evil like we humans have. After all, in a biblical sense, we were created like him.

After all, god (the christian one) annihilated whole cities because he was displeased with their behaviour. Doesn´t this make god evil?

But I really like this theme. I suppose no one ever read the aforementioned "Faust" written by Goethe? In this theatre play, Goethe shows this dualism.
Mephisto always works evil, but god tolerates him, for without evil, god could do no good things.

God is justified in whatever He accomplishes/wills.

Remember, one man's meat is another man's poison. But they both give thanks to God for it.

That would be interesting, I also suffered under a christian upbringing, until I was old enough to think for myself and see all the faults in christian beliefs.
There are non christians (perhaps non Islamic would also be good because of some parallels) on this board, I hope they respond.

Were you brought up in heresy? Find strength in God!

I'm curious for an explanation for those who were not exposed to, and do not have, the proper Christian behaviour.

For instance, the Aztecs. Since they behaved in a way contrary to Jesus, but were not given a Jesus (unless you're Mormon and believe there were chariots in the New World before Europeans brought horses), how does God judge them? He cannot judge based on either faith nor works.

What about people who are born without morality, like serial killers? Are they automatically sentenced to eternal damnation at the moment of conception?


Everyone is "automatically sentenced to eternal damnation at the moment of conception", at least according to Calvinists and a majority of proteststants. Accepting the Lamb of God as Lord and Savior is what saves you from Hell fire.

Right. Here's my question: the Aztecs never got any Lamb of Savor, they didn't even have mutton! Were they saved? Well, appearantly not.
God must be quite the dick to condemn people to Hell fire just because they got born in the wrong place. Please equivocate yourself out of this.

Right. Here's my question: the Aztecs never got any Lamb of Savor, they didn't even have mutton! Were they saved? Well, appearantly not.
God must be quite the dick to condemn people to Hell fire just because they got born in the wrong place. Please equivocate yourself out of this.

to quote myself since you didnt see it:
God is justified in whatever He accomplishes/wills.

Since you wish for me to "equivocate" :rolleyes: myself, here goes:

Romans 2

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[1] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.



Am I equivocated now?

I'm not passing judement on anyone Southstar, I'm curious to how God passes judgement, and the following quote explains how God passes judement.

"[1] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

Now, by using the reasoning faculties that God has bestowed upon his race of men (that his Churches discourage), I can reason that if you cut virgin's hearts out and devour them, then flay their body and wear their skin, you ain't goin where the angels fly. I wouldn't call this bit of reasoning passing judgement.

However, the question, which is still unanswered, did the bloodthirst Aztecs go to Hell? They behaved wickedly by God's standards, but they did not know Jesus or the "proper" way to behave. Nor did they know of God, so they could not believe in him.

So unless human sacrifice is under God's law (which he does ordain in the book of Joshua, I believe), the gentile Aztecs are in a lake of fire and fry.

sevenblu, you're assuming God is infinitly powerful, and that the devil was created by God on purpose

I believe that the Devil was created the same way God was (willed himself into existance)
The Devil isnt just a tool of a God, he is a being similar to God and draws his power from the evil intentions of people. The Devil can become more powerful then God if humans become more evil then good

Alain, this is a little contrived, but who's good and who's evil?

Is the greatest good making the most people happy? What if everyone's happy now, but the cost of making everyone happy today will make everyone unhappy for the next week? Would that be evil?

Are you saying that whoever plays the game of life by God's rules stregthens God, and likewise for playing the Devil's game?

God is neither good, evil, or neutral "in the first place". That would be placing an infinite being into a category which is paradoxical. ;)

God does not exist.

however ten of millions of sheep on this planet do think he or it does, and they even class him or it as the killer of humankind, Ie when theres a natural disaster It's deemed an act of god so Is he or it, not also the devil,

sevenblu, you're assuming God is infinitly powerful, and that the devil was created by God on purpose

I believe that the Devil was created the same way God was (willed himself into existance)
The Devil isnt just a tool of a God, he is a being similar to God and draws his power from the evil intentions of people. The Devil can become more powerful then God if humans become more evil then good

Is there no liberal being
because in all walks of life we have the good the bad and the liberal
the one that sit's on the bench undecided.

How could anything will it self into existence (if it does not exist it has no will)

define what your meaning of evil is.

and according to all the holy books, if you wish to believe them, God is omnipotent and omnipresent (all seeing and all knowing)ie infinite power.

also everything in the existence according to the h/books god created
all this make you statement a bit lame.

I think this can be explained in terms of God's omniscience. If His "all knowing powers" extend into the future, then certainly God is a bit of an asshole. After all, he would be predestining people to go to hell. But if those powers only extend into the present and the past, then nothing really is God's fault because humanity is just an experiment gone wrong.

Is is possible that God cannot see the future; that he can only give the most educated guess in the confines of his divinity?

And what about those born before Christ? Are they all (with the exception of those chosen by God... Moses, David) rotting in Hell?

As a matter of fact, they should go to hell. They were after all worshipping idols, furthermore they prayed to various gods. This goes against gods commandments as far as I know.
Also, Jesus died for our sins, does it also mean he died for the sins of the Babylonians who prayed to gods thousands of years before Christianity was invented.

@§outh§tar

Were you brought up in heresy? Find strength in God!

What do you mean? I said that I suffered from a christian upbringing. That´s not heresy. I just do not believe in Christianity any longer because their ideas are full of holes, filled with unlogic reasoning.

And why should I find strenght in god? I have enough strenght myself.

If God IS omnscience, then JESUS did not die for the sins of all, but for the sins of the chosen only.

Many are called few are chosen.

Why Are they chosen?

What did they do when they heard the call?

Did they hear and believe the call?

Did they reject the call?

Did God force one to hear and another to reject the call?

Or did He have foreknowledge of whom would hear the call and whom would reject the call?

Romans 8
28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

If this biblegod is true like some of you agree on this thread, why in the world would you choose to worship such an evil being?

I will not, and never will worship such a cruel being.

Not cruel ? ..... thats like saying Hitler wasnt cruel.

There is no devil, but there was an infinite god.
A perfection. A balance.
If an inbalance occurs, the pendulum has started.

So you are of the opinion that god caused all evil and good Bigal?
Do I understand that correctly?

of course he is dreamy who else is to blame it ain't me
god and the devil are the same person (THING)
ask you local court who they blame for death by flood earthquake etc GOD

Despite all of the Questions I've seen raised, the ignorance you show is of this one. What/who is man? A simple question it may seem, and so it is, but even the knowledge of a simple truth, goes unseen by those who are blind to it.

Since there is no truth, just a load of different opinions it is a bit difficult to find "a truth" that fits to everything and everyone.
Perhaps you would enlight me of what I am ignorant right now?
Is it that I am ignorant of the nature of a god? If so, well, that happens, there are so many out there that it is a bit hard to know everything about them.
If it is on the nature of humans, there are also many truths. One that is pretty widespread nowadays is that we were created by god (whichever one you like) others think we evolved from simpler lifeforms and ultimately from nothing at all. There are as many opinions out there as humans, so of which do you speak exactly?

Since there is no truth, just a load of different opinions it is a bit difficult to find "a truth" that fits to everything and everyone.
Perhaps you would enlight me of what I am ignorant right now?
Is it that I am ignorant of the nature of a god? If so, well, that happens, there are so many out there that it is a bit hard to know everything about them.
If it is on the nature of humans, there are also many truths. One that is pretty widespread nowadays is that we were created by god (whichever one you like) others think we evolved from simpler lifeforms and ultimately from nothing at all. There are as many opinions out there as humans, so of which do you speak exactly?

Anyone thats not a Deist :D I could be wrong.... :bugeye:

But then he would be wrong :cool:

Yes, you could be right. Now that I read it again I understand it to some extend. Thanks.

Ah well, everyone has is own opinions and truth. That´s the way it is. :D

nullus diabolus nullus redemptor

There is no devil, but there was an infinite god.

Believing in God and not believing in the Devil is naive. Both come together or neither at all. Without Evil, there would be no challenge for the divine...

I suspect that if the Devil (the second best-known figure in Christianity) can be excised from the Christian tradition, then any other figure might be eliminated as well. If Christ did not come to save us from the power of the devil, as the new testiment said, then perhaps he did not come to save us at all...

If there were no Evil and no Devil then virtue would wither for lack of challenge.

"Alain, this is a little contrived, but who's good and who's evil?

Is the greatest good making the most people happy?"
yes and no, if you try to be evil but make people happy its still evil and vice versa

"what if everyone's happy now, but the cost of making everyone happy today will make everyone unhappy for the next week? Would that be evil?"

yes that would be evil (assuming the next week unhappiness was greater than the this week happiness)



"Are you saying that whoever plays the game of life by God's rules stregthens God, and likewise for playing the Devil's game?"
yes, but we dont actually know Gods exact rules, we can only guess.

"Is there no liberal being
because in all walks of life we have the good the bad and the liberal
the one that sit's on the bench undecided."
not sure i get you... yes, there are big grey areas, we can try to understand, and will fail in many cases, its just a matter of failing in as few as possible

"How could anything will it self into existence (if it does not exist it has no will)"
i would love to hear your theory as to how the universe started

"define what your meaning of evil is."
killing a baby is evil, unless you have evidence that the baby will kill many others
feeding a starving child is good
and then theres grey areas between there

"and according to all the holy books, if you wish to believe them, God is omnipotent and omnipresent (all seeing and all knowing)ie infinite power."
so take that one step further... i dont believe in any of the holy books, happy?


"also everything in the existence according to the h/books god created
all this make you statement a bit lame. "
once again, there is no holy book for the God that i worship

"once again, there is no holy book for the God that i worship

Can I get an AMEN !! , No wait thats revealed relgion terminology...... Can I get a Glory be to God..... :bugeye: ... no wait thats........ aw hell that will suffice.

What a dream for mankind to be content in that statement....... but noooooooo. Mankind has to write 183,000 books on it including the Holy Babble... :mad:

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.

nullus diabolus nullus redemptor



Believing in God and not believing in the Devil is naive. Both come together or neither at all. Without Evil, there would be no challenge for the divine...

I suspect that if the Devil (the second best-known figure in Christianity) can be excised from the Christian tradition, then any other figure might be eliminated as well. If Christ did not come to save us from the power of the devil, as the new testiment said, then perhaps he did not come to save us at all...

If there were no Evil and no Devil then virtue would wither for lack of challenge.

i agree you cant have one without the other, but you never will they are one.

virtue will always be here.
incidently there is no god/devil.
we're doing alright are we not.
it's only the religious nuts that are screwing thinks up, for they have the devil inside them.

Dreamwalker, there is in fact no such thing as good or evil.
It just is what it is. There has to be a positive and a negative for anything to work.
Everything needs to cycle.
So yes god created the 'human' ideas of good and evil. We have created these catergories for ourselves to label things that we like or not.
In terms of the whole universe, nothing is good or evil, it all works together to be what it is. Still as perfect as it ever was.
Dog eat dog.
God is everything now and always will be, but one day god will again be one.
Instead of billions of fragments as we are part of today.
But what is the good in being one?
Well, that is why me and you are here today.

Ah, I thought it would be something like that.

And yes, I agree with you on the good and evil thing. I have
stated so myself in another thread rather recently. Something
with good and evil in its title, I think. "All ya need is hate..." it was labeled I believe.

Anyway, I do not believe in the god you believe in, but that
alas is another thing altogether.

Thanks for explaining.

What do you believe Dreamwalker?
I only believe what I've written because I've had the most surreal experiences of anybody I've ever spoken to. No influence of others. For me, there can be no other way.

they are one and the same take it from me I should know

they are one and the same take it from me I should know

Why? Are you the... devil? Or just a friend of the devil? :p

@ Bigal

What I believe in? Well, I try to keep it short.

I believe in action and reaction, on this everything is based. It can commonly be called nature. And that´s the nature of all things.
The only real question is, what caused the first action and was there ever a first action or just reactions.
Some people call it god, I call it nature. That is it in short. Nature, action and reaction.

And why should I find strenght in god? I have enough strenght myself.

Haha, I love it. Finally someone says it. :)

- N

Well, why should I not say it? It is true after all, there is no need to believe in a god to get strenght.
If you ask me it is all a matter of perspective and the amount of strenght every human has should be sufficent to live your life. :D

lol, holy babble
theres no point creating your own religion then spreading it, then u wont be an individual anymore

Who is creating and spreading his own religion?
I do not know, but don´t you need some kind of god
for a religion, some set of values, morals, commandments
and something you worship?
I just have a different perspective, not a new religion.

There is no such thing as good and evil.

That seems like taking the easy way out. Isn't good and evil basically different terms for right and wrong?

There's not such thing as right and wrong? I don't buy it.

Yes, I understand that things "are" and there is no way of changing them and we must learn to accept the world for what it is... but if there are no such thing as good and evil, then a baby raper is just a virtuous as a holy man (a real holy man, that is, not a baby raper pretending to be virtuous).

Isn't good and evil basically different terms for right and wrong?

Oho, that's a thread in itself. I personally wouldn't equate good and evil with right and wrong. And if you do, you have a tendency to see foreign cultures as evil because their rights and wrongs are not all the same. Don't forget, if they look at it the same way, we're the evil ones. Good and evil (to have any real meaning) would have to be much more than that.

"Who is creating and spreading his own religion?
I do not know, but don´t you need some kind of god
for a religion, some set of values, morals, commandments
and something you worship?
I just have a different perspective, not a new religion."

a different perspective is a different religion

I'm not passing judement on anyone Southstar, I'm curious to how God passes judgement, and the following quote explains how God passes judement.



Now, by using the reasoning faculties that God has bestowed upon his race of men (that his Churches discourage), I can reason that if you cut virgin's hearts out and devour them, then flay their body and wear their skin, you ain't goin where the angels fly. I wouldn't call this bit of reasoning passing judgement.

However, the question, which is still unanswered, did the bloodthirst Aztecs go to Hell? They behaved wickedly by God's standards, but they did not know Jesus or the "proper" way to behave. Nor did they know of God, so they could not believe in him.

So unless human sacrifice is under God's law (which he does ordain in the book of Joshua, I believe), the gentile Aztecs are in a lake of fire and fry.

Do you suggest God is to blame???

Of course they went to hell. There are people today who KNOW who Christ is but reject Him all the same. So you see, it really doesn't matter....

I know I don't make a lot of sense, its 4 AM over here. When I get back I'll show you the verse that PROVES beyond a doubt that they all go to hell.

God does not exist.

however ten of millions of sheep on this planet do think he or it does, and they even class him or it as the killer of humankind, Ie when theres a natural disaster It's deemed an act of god so Is he or it, not also the devil,

Is the "killer of humankind" not justified in "killing" His own property???

Of course He is, the Creator can do whatever He wants to the creation.

As a matter of fact, they should go to hell. They were after all worshipping idols, furthermore they prayed to various gods. This goes against gods commandments as far as I know.
Also, Jesus died for our sins, does it also mean he died for the sins of the Babylonians who prayed to gods thousands of years before Christianity was invented.

@§outh§tar



What do you mean? I said that I suffered from a christian upbringing. That´s not heresy. I just do not believe in Christianity any longer because their ideas are full of holes, filled with unlogic reasoning.

And why should I find strenght in god? I have enough strenght myself.

Well, it could have been Mormon, Latter Day.. whatever. That's what I was referring to :rolleyes:

...and WHO gives you that strength? Did your body learn to "manufacture" strength by its lonesome? :bugeye:

nullus diabolus nullus redemptor



Believing in God and not believing in the Devil is naive. Both come together or neither at all. Without Evil, there would be no challenge for the divine...

I suspect that if the Devil (the second best-known figure in Christianity) can be excised from the Christian tradition, then any other figure might be eliminated as well. If Christ did not come to save us from the power of the devil, as the new testiment said, then perhaps he did not come to save us at all...

If there were no Evil and no Devil then virtue would wither for lack of challenge.

That is an invalid opinion.

God, by definition, needs/has no challenge. Correct? Therefore the Devil is not a challenge.

Don't believe me? Read the first chapter of the book of Job.

That's the traditional Christian opinion. There's also the Mancihean opinion, which holds that there's a contest between Good and Evil that isn't essentially rigged from the start.

@ Alain

Perhaps you are right. Well, it is just a matter of perspective :D

@ SouthStar

Well, it could have been Mormon, Latter Day.. whatever. That's what I was referring to
...and WHO gives you that strength? Did your body learn to "manufacture" strength by its lonesome?

Now I see what you mean with the heresy part. Well, I was raised as an
Evangelist. But who cares, if it was catholic I would have reacted the same
way.

I have strength, I created it myself over the years. It´s not like I have to beg for it. If you velieve in yourself you gain strength, just like others who pray to god to gain strength. They only take a more roundabout way.

Is the "killer of humankind" not justified in "killing" His own property???

Of course He is, the Creator can do whatever He wants to the creation.

So parents are justified in killing their children?

Defining Good and Evil would be nice, don't you think? IMHO:

Good: That which doesn't causes harm to yourself and/or others.

Evil: Property a of a "noun" (object, person) or "verb" (action) that willingly causes harm to itself or others.

To me, as a catholic heretic, the devil is a being powered by the malicious intents of humanity. God could possibly destroy, or dissipate the devil, or turn it back to good, but it is the free will that he gave humanity that keeps this evil as it is.

"god" and "satan" are metaphors for an abstract polar relationship of gross depictions (good and evil) of human behavior.

Affirm vs. Detract

Once a mind establishes a goal.. let's say "survival" or perhaps "comfort", the notion (however crude or nonspecific) of affirmation or detraction is implicit regarding interaction with the evironment (including social interaction). This must be one of the most primal of abstract notions, as it arises (at least ever so slightly) even without the added conceptual focal assistance of language.

Bark at the moon. (to threaten threats to survival)

Cuddle with offspring. (in affirmation of survival)

I think this basic component of being is the source of gods and devils.

I'd even guess that evolutionarily speaking, that's why we have a part of our brain dealing with exactly "the spiritual". I dunno though. I'd have to argue that out for a while.

So parents are justified in killing their children?

Did parents create their children?

No.

@ Alain

Perhaps you are right. Well, it is just a matter of perspective :D

@ SouthStar



Now I see what you mean with the heresy part. Well, I was raised as an
Evangelist. But who cares, if it was catholic I would have reacted the same
way.

I have strength, I created it myself over the years. It´s not like I have to beg for it. If you velieve in yourself you gain strength, just like others who pray to god to gain strength. They only take a more roundabout way.

Yes, but I am asking, from where do you gain this "strength"?

Psalm 121

1 I lift up my eyes to the hills-
where does my help come from?
2 My help comes from the LORD ,
the Maker of heaven and earth.

Did parents create their children?

No.

??? This is a whole other issue, I guess. There IS a reason why God is called our Father; because he is symbolic of the parent.

And if God is symbolic of the parent, he is like a great great great great grandFather... Sure, a grandfather is responsible for the creation of his grandchild, but the immediate parent takes on full responsibility. Because of the "idea" of free-will, God doesn not create children... people create children... So, YES, parents create their children.

And neither have the right to murder their offspring... Only God has infinite wisdom, so if He wants to kill some babies, go ahead. Only He can grasp the reason.

??? This is a whole other issue, I guess. There IS a reason why God is called our Father; because he is symbolic of the parent.

And if God is symbolic of the parent, he is like a great great great great grandFather... Sure, a grandfather is responsible for the creation of his grandchild, but the immediate parent takes on full responsibility. Because of the "idea" of free-will, God doesn not create children... people create children... So, YES, parents create their children.

And neither have the right to murder their offspring... Only God has infinite wisdom, so if He wants to kill some babies, go ahead. Only He can grasp the reason.

I will attempt to clarify things by referring to the Lamb of God. On earth He loved a father named Joseph and in heaven, He loves the Father of lights. (The verb tense I'm using doesn't really matter here)

Here is how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'create'

1 : to bring into existence <God created the heaven and the earth -- Gen 1:1 (Authorized Version)>


Parents on earth did/do/will not bring children into existence. Even David knew that..

And why do you say that we are God's offspring? We are created to be His slaves whether we like it or not? Now tell me, does that sound like free will to you? That is His edict and we can only thank him for it or suffer discipline and NOT punishment.


Jesus Christ was not created. Human beings cannot create and if you insist in saying they can, I ask you, who created the first human? And if you say God, you have proven my point, God creates humans, not humans create humans.

---------------


A few things in there are just ramble, please ignore. :p

Parents on earth did/do/will not bring children into existence. Even David knew that..

David lived in a time before rational science... I can't agree with you on this point, but we're still cool. Right?

Let me see Southstar, you asked me where I gained my strength.

Well, years ago I more or less believed in god, due to upbringing, surroundings and so on. And I was rather weak, bodily and mentally. That made it quite easy for others to suppress me. I went to church, I prayed and so on and so on. But it did not really help me, the others kept on having their way with me. I searched for answers why they act like it, why god doesn´t help me and all the other crap.
Well, I withdrew myself from society to some extend and in the resulting loneliness I began to think. As I may have stated, I came to the conclusion that there is no god. Anyway, neither belief nor disbelief gave me strength. Why should it? I came to the conclusion that not the other people are the core of my problem, I am. I did not believe in my capabilities, nor in my personality. When you are weak of mind, the belief in god does not make you strong, perhaps it makes you think you are strong, living in a community with other people, believing that one day you will stand in front of god and he will judge you. Then, when you have lived your life according to christian ideals, you will gain entrance to heaven. I suppose this notion gives some people a feeling of reassurance that can turn into some kind of strength.
But since I gave up religion, you could say I was falling, my weak self could not hold me and all those others bullying me did not help much.
Well, someday I hit the rock bottom of my mind, I was pretty down, nearly suicidal. To keep it realtively short; as I stated earlier I came to the conclusion that my present state was entirely my fault. I chose not to be such a miserable wimp anymore, praying to gods mercy living my live in humility and suppresion. The best choice to accomplish this change was , in my eyes, to face the problems head on. It wasn´t easy, but I kept on because I never wanted to be weak minded and bullied any longer.

Well, I was successful, it was not always easy or painless but I acted out of desperation. Through this actions I discoverd selfesteem and I found out that my mind was only weak because I believed it to be weak. I found strength in the deepest parts of my mind. And that is where it comes from.

1 I lift up my eyes to the hills-
where does my help come from?
2 My help comes from the LORD ,
the Maker of heaven and earth.

Anice quote that is, but you would find strength if you stop looking up to the
heavens and start looking for it inside yourself. For the strength you find in yourselfef is not an illusion.

"Yes, but I am asking, from where do you gain this "strength"?"

chemical reactions that are extremely complex give him this """strength"""
that seems more likely then some mystical being giving """""you strength"""""

David lived in a time before rational science... I can't agree with you on this point, but we're still cool. Right?

Yup.

And when exactly did "irrational science" give way to "rational science" after the time of David?
:rolleyes:

7Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
9If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10Even there Your hand shall lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.
11If I say, "Surely the darkness shall fall[1] on me,"
Even the night shall be light about me;
12Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
But the night shines as the day;
The darkness and the light are both alike to You.


13For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother's womb.
14I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[2]
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

Thus, I conclude by confirming that we all exist before the foundation of the earth was wraught.

Let me see Southstar, you asked me where I gained my strength.

Well, years ago I more or less believed in god, due to upbringing, surroundings and so on. And I was rather weak, bodily and mentally. That made it quite easy for others to suppress me. I went to church, I prayed and so on and so on. But it did not really help me, the others kept on having their way with me. I searched for answers why they act like it, why god doesn´t help me and all the other crap.
Well, I withdrew myself from society to some extend and in the resulting loneliness I began to think. As I may have stated, I came to the conclusion that there is no god. Anyway, neither belief nor disbelief gave me strength. Why should it? I came to the conclusion that not the other people are the core of my problem, I am. I did not believe in my capabilities, nor in my personality. When you are weak of mind, the belief in god does not make you strong, perhaps it makes you think you are strong, living in a community with other people, believing that one day you will stand in front of god and he will judge you. Then, when you have lived your life according to christian ideals, you will gain entrance to heaven. I suppose this notion gives some people a feeling of reassurance that can turn into some kind of strength.
But since I gave up religion, you could say I was falling, my weak self could not hold me and all those others bullying me did not help much.
Well, someday I hit the rock bottom of my mind, I was pretty down, nearly suicidal. To keep it realtively short; as I stated earlier I came to the conclusion that my present state was entirely my fault. I chose not to be such a miserable wimp anymore, praying to gods mercy living my live in humility and suppresion. The best choice to accomplish this change was , in my eyes, to face the problems head on. It wasn´t easy, but I kept on because I never wanted to be weak minded and bullied any longer.

Well, I was successful, it was not always easy or painless but I acted out of desperation. Through this actions I discoverd selfesteem and I found out that my mind was only weak because I believed it to be weak. I found strength in the deepest parts of my mind. And that is where it comes from.



Anice quote that is, but you would find strength if you stop looking up to the
heavens and start looking for it inside yourself. For the strength you find in yourselfef is not an illusion.

This sort of attitude, in Christianity, is recognized as heresy. Since I happened to have gotten myself a brand spanking new Encyclopaedia Britannica ;), let's see what it has to say:

-------------------------

The belief that humans are justified before God by grace through faith separated the first Protestant reformers from the Roman Catholicism of their day. And despite the subtle differences that arose in the various Protestant church bodies, devotion to this teaching has been central to Protestantism throughout its history.

In the 16th century concern for “justification” (the act through which God grants a sinner grace or makes a sinner righteous) was related to the desire, often expressed in language drawn from the courts of law, of finding oneself on good terms with God. Aware of its shortcomings, its ignorance, its sin, and its guilt, humankind saw itself standing before a bar of justice presided over by God. Without help, individuals could expect nothing but God's wrath and condemnation. This meant that they would perish everlastingly, and their present life would be full of torment. Yet the Bible also presented humankind with a picture of a loving and gracious God, who desires happiness for all. The question then was how could individuals be sure that God would reveal his gracious, and not his wrathful, side? How could they have the confidence that they were included in the positive loving action of God?

The teaching of the Reformers becomes most intelligible when contrasted with Roman Catholic doctrine (e.g., sin, grace, atonement) as the Reformers understood it. In the Protestant view, late medieval Catholic teaching held that individuals were returned to God only when so much grace had been infused into their souls that they merited God's favour. God could not accept someone who was unacceptable, but he could impart something that would make humans acceptable. This something was grace, and its flow depended upon the merits of God's perfect Son, the man Jesus Christ. The church, according to medieval Catholicism, in a sense controlled the flow through its sacramental system and its hierarchy.

To the Reformers the Roman Catholic sacramental system seemed to be part of an ongoing transaction between humankind and God. Catholics would attend the mass, bring offerings, show sorrow, do penance—which might involve self-punishment or compensatory good works—until God became gracious; the church and its clergy mediated the transaction. The Reformers believed that such an arrangement could easily be misused and was without scriptural foundation. It was this vision of Catholicism that helped inspire the Protestant leadership to rebel and to define justification in other terms.

The terms for this Protestant teaching came from the Bible, especially from the New Testament and even more so from the writings of St. Paul. In St. Paul the Reformers saw a religious hero and thinker who had experienced a spiritual quest similar to their own. His conversion signified a radical turning and a free acceptance of God's favour “in Christ.” This meant that in faith a person could be so identified with Jesus Christ that when God looked at him, he saw instead the merit that Christ had won through his self-sacrifice on the cross. God looked at the sinner and saw his perfect Son, not the sinner. He could, therefore, declare the person righteous, or “justify” him, even though the person was still a sinner.

According to this interpretation of Paul's teaching, grace was not infused in the sinner to the point that he or she became acceptable and pleasing to God; instead, while the individual remained a sinner, God accepted him favourably and justified him. Christ's death on the cross was then the only “transaction” that mattered between God and humanity. The sacraments reinforced this relationship and brought new grace, but no pretense was made that the human subject had achieved satisfaction before God or had earned enough merit to inspire God to act.

In the Reformers' view the new situation provided freedom. Whereas Catholics were bound to strive to achieve enough good works to please God, the Reformers taught that believers stood before God completely freed of this duty and from the enslaving pride that went with the notion that the believers had achieved or at least had substantially cooperated in their own salvation. This left the Reformers with a serious question, one to which their Roman Catholic opponents regularly referred. What had happened in this teaching of justification and freedom to the biblical emphasis on good works? Jesus himself, in theSynoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), was constantly preoccupied with the effort of making people better, of having them bring forth “good fruit.” Even Paul shared such concerns. Had the Protestant movement slighted these concerns in its desire to free human beings from the necessity of merits and good works?

The literature of Protestantism is rich in its answers to such questions. The Reformers were virtually unanimous: good works could not bring one salvation, yet they inevitably flowed from the forgiven heart and were always the consequence of the justified person's life. The law of God was not a path human beings walked as a sort of obstacle course or road map to God but rather a means to measure human shortcomings and judge them. A gracious God acting through his Gospel brought human beings back to him.

The Reformers believed that God viewed human beings in two ways. The justified person, in God's eyes, was so identified with Jesus Christ that he or she shared Christ's perfection. The same person, when seen by God apart from Christ's sacrificial work, remained a sinner. The difference came through God's gracious initiative; nothing that a person did started the process of his or her justification. To many in subsequent generations, this was a pessimistic and gloomy view of human potential. The will was bound; apart from God's loving activity, no good works would satisfy God. Indeed, the phrase total depravity was sometimes used to demonstrate the extent of sin and to describe the debased condition of humanity. Even good works, piety, and religiousness were without value apart from justification by grace through faith. On the other hand, the justified sinner could be described in the most lavish terms as one who could be “as Christ” or even sometimes “a Christ.”

Those who have heard this Protestant teaching outlined through the centuries have regularly seen the difficulties it raises insofar as the portrait of God's character is concerned. Protestants never came up with logically satisfying answers to the resultant questions, though in general they were convinced that their teaching was supported by the Bible. A central question was begged: If everything depended upon God's initiative and yet the majority of people are not saved, does this not mean thatGod is responsible for creating humans only to have them suffer and is he not guilty of the worst kind of cruelty by being the sole agent of human damnation?

Protestant leaders answered this question in several different ways. Some said that whenever people were saved, it was to God's credit; whenever they were lost, it was their own fault because they refused to hear the Word and accept the gift of grace.Others, especially Calvinists, emphasizing God's sovereignty and initiative, taught “double predestination,” which asserted that God predestined some people to be saved and others to be damned. Some theologians argued that God predestined humans before the fall of Adam, and others saw it as a new act of God consequent upon man's fall. Non-Calvinist churches wereusually less systematic and less logical in their soteriology (the theology of salvation), teaching “single predestination.” They shared the Calvinists' affirmation of God's total responsibility for human salvation, but they tended to be silent or to relegate tothe area of mystery the issue of how God could be responsible for salvation but not damnation. In general, Protestants believed they were more successful at preserving the teaching of God's sovereignty and human helplessness than they were at making his character attractive to all. To overcome this problem they stressed God's love of humanity in sending his own Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer on its behalf.

----------------------------------------------


That is just but a fraction of the whole essay. So you see, it is rather arrogant to believe in one's own "might" or "ability", say, like a worm would in the presence of a fire-breathing dragon.

"And when exactly did "irrational science" give way to "rational science" after the time of David?"

lucky i came accross that post, im an 'expert' on the subject.
David's scientific advisor was actually a female by the name of Irra Tional.
Now Irra was a nice person, but she made a few silly mistakes and blunders, David kicked her out of the job and hired an outlander who was very intelligent. David, out of respect for Irra order the new advisor to take the name Irra as her own, out of respect for the original Irra.

In the outlanders own language, Ir means stupid, so she cut the Ir of and called herself Ra Tional. She was a much better advisor the Irra. All the good scientific advisors took the name Ra Tional, and the bad ones took the name Irra Tional and the two schools of thought were born

"Yes, but I am asking, from where do you gain this "strength"?"

chemical reactions that are extremely complex give him this """strength"""
that seems more likely then some mystical being giving """""you strength"""""

--------------

Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link together if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earth’s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed.a Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen.b

To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated. However, the early oceans or atmosphere would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between them would rarely occur. Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids.c Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed.d The many attempts to show how life might have arrived on earth have demonstrated (a) the futility of that effort, (b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life,e and (c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.

-------------------------

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences34.html

"And when exactly did "irrational science" give way to "rational science" after the time of David?"

lucky i came accross that post, im an 'expert' on the subject.
David's scientific advisor was actually a female by the name of Irra Tional.
Now Irra was a nice person, but she made a few silly mistakes and blunders, David kicked her out of the job and hired an outlander who was very intelligent. David, out of respect for Irra order the new advisor to take the name Irra as her own, out of respect for the original Irra.

In the outlanders own language, Ir means stupid, so she cut the Ir of and called herself Ra Tional. She was a much better advisor the Irra. All the good scientific advisors took the name Ra Tional, and the bad ones took the name Irra Tional and the two schools of thought were born

Strike two for the Lamb.

A rather long text you gave me as an answer Southstar.

If I understand that correctly you think my views are heretic and my puny mind cannot aprehend god. But from the text I gain the impression that the catholic church has gained insights in god´s nature.

That is just but a fraction of the whole essay. So you see, it is rather arrogant to believe in one's own "might" or "ability", say, like a worm would in the presence of a fire-breathing dragon.

This quote is obviously a parallel to my supposed ignorance, right?
I can accept that I may not be able to comprehend the greater scheme of the universe, it may well be true.
But tell me, when I am compared to a worm, it would be logicall to assume that religion was also founded by worms. Worms whose abilities are the same as mine, and they saw the truth? Perhaps I ,as a worm, am oblivious to the dragon (which would be god) but perhaps it is not there or does not care about the worms.
So tell me, from where did you gain the ability to see my existance and god in such an objective way? Can you do it because you have faith? Obviously
you must have great faith that you and your religion is right, but the founders and members of all religions are just as capable of seing the truth as I am. So tell me, why am I wrong but you are right?

Is Satan actually God wearing a mask?
Mask? What mask?

The mask that makes him look like god. :D

sargent lard, is your avatar pic really you?

A rather long text you gave me as an answer Southstar.

If I understand that correctly you think my views are heretic and my puny mind cannot aprehend god. But from the text I gain the impression that the catholic church has gained insights in god´s nature.[/b]

Your second statement was right on the money (if by your views, you mean you can be independent and successful on your own). But yes, you can "comprehend" god, but you can't comprehend God.


The Catholic Church has gained absolutely no insight. Do you forget that what we know of God is from Him? If we claim to know something of God that is against the gospel of Christ, as Paul said, let that person be "accursed". No man gains anything. We only recieve that we might give in return.


[quote]This quote is obviously a parallel to my supposed ignorance, right?

More like your arrogance in saying you don't need to depend on God but one indicates the other..

Trust me, I am not trying to belittle you. In fact, all Christians were at one time as rebellious and stubborn as you were (and still are to some degree).


I can accept that I may not be able to comprehend the greater scheme of the universe, it may well be true.
But tell me, when I am compared to a worm, it would be logicall to assume that religion was also founded by worms. Worms whose abilities are the same as mine, and they saw the truth?

Religion is not God. True and undefiled Christianity is the love of Christ which causes us to readily recieve the Spirit of Holiness, without whom, these "worms" would see no truth to begin with. Of course these worms have the same abilities as you do, but God's purpose for everyone is different. If anyone claims to know the truth but does not show it, he is a liar.


Perhaps I ,as a worm, am oblivious to the dragon (which would be god) but perhaps it is not there or does not care about the worms.
So tell me, from where did you gain the ability to see my existance and god in such an objective way?

The poor analogy was only to show where you stand in comparison to God's might. You are taking it to be a comprehensive explanation but I really did not mean it so. If the dragon did not care about the worms, the worms wouldn't be here.

Can you do it because you have faith? Obviously
you must have great faith that you and your religion is right, but the founders and members of all religions are just as capable of seing the truth as I am. So tell me, why am I wrong but you are right?

There again is the arrogance. Human beings are capable of seeing nothing. Not me, not you, not the pope, not Buddha. I am not right, if by "right" you mean MY truth. God is right and in case you have heard of the 'great commision', that is the reason he has commanded his slaves to make disciples of all nations.

No matter how much contemplating, how much studying or meditation.. what-not. The worm will NEVER be able to know the dragon. And again, it's a wretched analogy, but bear with me. Unless the dragon told the worm, how would the worm know?

Hehe, this is quite funny :D


Your second statement was right on the money (if by your views, you mean you can be independent and successful on your own). But yes, you can "comprehend" god, but you can't comprehend God.

Uh, I do not care about money or success or something like that, sorry.


The Catholic Church has gained absolutely no insight. Do you forget that what we know of God is from Him? If we claim to know something of God that is against the gospel of Christ, as Paul said, let that person be "accursed". No man gains anything. We only recieve that we might give in return.

Now, if I understand this correctly you are of the opinion that god revealed himself to some guys in the past and they wrote the bible as a consequence?
If you want to say something like that, I ask again, why are they right?
There were scriptures of gods long before any christian beliefs.
(in fact, parts of the bible sound somewhat like ancient babylonian myths, only altered to fit on one god)


And another question. I am arrogant because I believe that I have strength on my own? So I have to be weak to get rid of my arrogance? No thanks.

Why are you so sure that the bible speaks the truth? There is no proof that god´s word was written down. But there are many parts in the bible that seem to be copied from other texts. I do not exactly negate the existance of a god or more than one, but I do doubt that the bible, or the koran or a number of other scriptures, do contain the word and teachings of god.
Therefore, I also doubt that there is someone who is able to talk about anything that is related to god. No one has the capability, the resources to do so. As a result, my opinion can be true.


There again is the arrogance. Human beings are capable of seeing nothing

Are you so sure about that? Perhaps we are able to see, and perhaps someone has already found the truth.
But I do not want to see, I am content with observing my own blindness and that which I see when I close my eyes.

Hehe, this is quite funny :D

:bugeye:


Uh, I do not care about money or success or something like that, sorry.

I am sure anyone else reading this can confirm that you are either making a fool out of yourself or you are having a very difficult time understanding that statement..


Now, if I understand this correctly you are of the opinion that god revealed himself to some guys in the past and they wrote the bible as a consequence?
If you want to say something like that, I ask again, why are they right?

I never said that so I don't know what you are talking about.


There were scriptures of gods long before any christian beliefs.
(in fact, parts of the bible sound somewhat like ancient babylonian myths, only altered to fit on one god)

Anna Nicole Smith looks like a tub of goo, only altered to fit a TV screen. Your point is?

And another question. I am arrogant because I believe that I have strength on my own? So I have to be weak to get rid of my arrogance? No thanks.

You have to be weak to "get rid" of your arrogance? I don't know how you came to that conclusion but I'll keep reading..

Why are you so sure that the bible speaks the truth? There is no proof that god´s word was written down. But there are many parts in the bible that seem to be copied from other texts. I do not exactly negate the existance of a god or more than one, but I do doubt that the bible, or the koran or a number of other scriptures, do contain the word and teachings of god.
Therefore, I also doubt that there is someone who is able to talk about anything that is related to god. No one has the capability, the resources to do so. As a result, my opinion can be true.[.quote]


After ALL that I told you about man not being able to relate to God on his own, "not you, not me, not the pope".... you are somehow missing/avoiding all of that in this discussion and insisting on going on about capability and resources when I have already acknowledged and confirmed that no one does in fact have such "prowess".




[quote]Are you so sure about that? Perhaps we are able to see, and perhaps someone has already found the truth.
But I do not want to see, I am content with observing my own blindness and that which I see when I close my eyes.

How can you see if your eyes are closed??? :confused: The truth can't be found. Somehow you keep missing all that I'm saying. The Truth has to 'find' you.


The blind cannot lead the blind. For they will both fall into a ditch.

And another question. I am arrogant because I believe that I have strength on my own? So I have to be weak to get rid of my arrogance? No thanks. ”

You have to be weak to "get rid" of your arrogance? I don't know how you came to that conclusion but I'll keep reading..

Ah well, you know, I read this:

More like your arrogance in saying you don't need to depend on God but one indicates the other..

And thought it would somehow be connected with my statement above. Sorry of I misunderstood.


“ There were scriptures of gods long before any christian beliefs. (in fact, parts of the bible sound somewhat like ancient babylonian myths, only altered to fit on one god) ”

Anna Nicole Smith looks like a tub of goo, only altered to fit a TV screen. Your point is?

My point? I somehow got the expression that you believe in a god that is the god of the christians, muslims and wahtever else.
This led me to the question why you are so sure that there is A God. There could be many more gods and they could be entirely different from the "common" god.
You just seem to be very convinced that there is only ONE true god, I just wanted to point out that there might be more than one. Also, you have to have some foundation on which your beliefs rest. So I assumed that you beliefs were perhaps founded on the bible or a similar scripture.



How can you see if your eyes are closed??? The truth can't be found. Somehow you keep missing all that I'm saying. The Truth has to 'find' you.
The blind cannot lead the blind. For they will both fall into a ditch.

I wanted to express that I am not searching, I am content with waiting.
And not all who are blind are bound to fall :D
But why are you so sure that the truth has to find us? Were you perhaps enlightened by the truth?

Follow the Blind
Your journey, your last hope, it can begin
these passing dreams
were real no fantasy
there are more things than we know
come take my hand

Blind Guardian - Follow the Blind


And this is still funny. Your answers are very entertaining :D

Ah well, you know, I read this:



And thought it would somehow be connected with my statement above. Sorry of I misunderstood.

I still don't see anything about weakness in there...



My point? I somehow got the expression that you believe in a god that is the god of the christians, muslims and wahtever else.
This led me to the question why you are so sure that there is A God. There could be many more gods and they could be entirely different from the "common" god.
You just seem to be very convinced that there is only ONE true god, I just wanted to point out that there might be more than one. Also, you have to have some foundation on which your beliefs rest. So I assumed that you beliefs were perhaps founded on the bible or a similar scripture.

The God I serve is a tyrannical God who demands that He and He alone must be worshipped.

Deuteronomy 5
7 "You shall have no other gods before [1] me.


I think that is pretty much self-explanatory..


I wanted to express that I am not searching, I am content with waiting.
And not all who are blind are bound to fall :D
But why are you so sure that the truth has to find us? Were you perhaps enlightened by the truth?

Since you don't know when your time on earth will be up, why do you walk this treacherous line of uncertainty without hope?

I'm still not sure whether you're trying to be funny or trying to make me look foolish for defending myself.. :confused:



Follow the Blind
Your journey, your last hope, it can begin
these passing dreams
were real no fantasy
there are more things than we know
come take my hand

Blind Guardian - Follow the Blind


And this is still funny. Your answers are very entertaining :D

I'm sure that isn't a complement but I'll overlook..

Since you don't know when your time on earth will be up, why do you walk this treacherous line of uncertainty without hope?

Why? It is fun. Have you ever tried it? It is entertaining. If it was certain, it would be very boring after a while, at least I think so.

And no, I do not make fun of you. It was just a statement.



The God I serve is a tyrannical God who demands that He and He alone must be worshipped.

Deuteronomy 5 7 "You shall have no other gods before [1] me.

Ok, you serve a tyrannical god, but still, may I ask why?



I'm sure that isn't a complement but I'll overlook..

Oh, take it as a complement, you do not entertain me in a "bad" way.
You could say that I enjoy this, but it is not entertainement in the sense
of ridiculing you.

Why? It is fun. Have you ever tried it? It is entertaining. If it was certain, it would be very boring after a while, at least I think so.

And no, I do not make fun of you. It was just a statement.





Ok, you serve a tyrannical god, but still, may I ask why?





Oh, take it as a complement, you do not entertain me in a "bad" way.
You could say that I enjoy this, but it is not entertainement in the sense
of ridiculing you.


Is there something wrong with tyranny when there's no such thing as "freedom"?

It is just personal preferance. I do not like tyrants, but that is up to you.
Just because you are not free does not mean that you can never be free.

Still the question, why do you believe in that god?

It is just personal preferance. I do not like tyrants, but that is up to you.
Just because you are not free does not mean that you can never be free.

Still the question, why do you believe in that god?


I don't believe in that god. I believe in God.

Big difference.

Not for me.
But then the question is still there.

Why do you believe in God?

religion prevents fear of death

Still no answer yet. That´s just too bad. :rolleyes:
Perhaps you would deem to enlighten me SouthStar?

Still no answer yet. That´s just too bad. :rolleyes:
Perhaps you would deem to enlighten me SouthStar?

I'm not on the forum all day.. :rolleyes:


The answer is: revelation.

Oh, did god come around, knocked on the door and said: Care to go to heaven? You just have to kiss my ass.
:p

No seriously. How did you get this "revelation" if I may ask?

I mean, to me nothing was "revealed", hence I am a nihilist.

@ Dreamwalker

Aren't you in the other thread (forgot which one) where I talked about the different ways we come to "know" God?


--
Just don't feel like typing the same thing twice :p

Maybe... Did I overlooked it :eek: ... is it the "why doesn´t god show himself" thread?

Yes it is.

EDIT: Tell me, what's a nihilist?