Dear Friends,
now some people belong to some religion trying to spread out the terrorism and killing innocent people.they are saying that GOD ordered them to do that and if they do like that GOD will praise them.

under the mask of terrorism they are doing all this non-sense.
but is any religion preached its followers to kill orther people?.we are all humans.even animals wont kill the same kind animal.then being humans why we are killing our people.

is any religious book said to kill other religion people.up to my knowledge,every religion will say "God is one".all these religions are the ways to reach Him.

being in 21st century we have to think moderately.we shuold not have barbareous,ancient thoughts.our minds should be enlightened.we have to take care of ourselves,our family.
but the people who dont like to deveolp are doing all this kind of inhuman activities.

we shouldnt allow them to that kind of activities.there is no place in this world for such things.think big.
best wishes
Aswani Kumar:)

first you need good education to understand and think about your actions. I have a russian television at home so I wach wht they ahve to say. Unbeleivable or not but Russians tell more truth than Anericans ever wanted. The completely opposite is about chechen war.
I saw a few interviews. Firs they questioned one talibi terrorist who was from Pakistan. When he was questioned why he joined talibi and bun laden, he answered tht they promissed him to give meet every day. Later he angrily said tht everyone heere gets meet and tht he was tricked. He was also told tht to Afghanistan have attacked Jews, but he said tht he was very dissapointed when saw no Jews here either.

Other very interesting interview was with one high school and school proffesor in science. He teaches both schools to get 2$ a month from each. He was interviewed because the journalist asked some kids[14, 16 year old] how world was made. They answered tht world lies on a back of a giant?turtle?[don't remember what animal exactly. About America, they said tht they know who Americans are, but they have no idea where US is.

When proffesor was asked if it was true tht world lies on the back of a giant turtle, he smiles and says tht tht is wrong, only tales to tell children because the real model of universe is very difficult to understand and he tells>>>>read it>>>>> tht the centre of universe is earth and all planets are orbiting around it. the furthest is the sun. And the light of the sun is reflected by ?5? spinning and orbiting around earth cristals.
When asked why sun isn't in the centre, he smiles again and says tht he has heard of smth like tht, but to his mind it is all nonsence and should not be taken seriously.


Know, how do you propose to tell them tht killing americans is bad, when they beleive tht they are agressors from far away and never seen land who want to kill them all.

I saw this a week ago on NTV or RTR.

*Originally posted by aswanikumar
under the mask of terrorism they are doing all this non-sense.
but is any religion preached its followers to kill orther people?
...
is any religious book said to kill other religion people.*

Yes, the Koran, the book of Islam says to do that.

---Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult or oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.---
Koran

don't be so quick to say tht only for koran. I'm sure tht in bible the same is mentioned about egyptians, philistians[i think it spells different], inhabitants of sofom and gomor and so on. in bible there are descibred many battles and wars.
And koran was mainly taken from christianity.
When Muhamed saw how christians were expanding he thought of new religion to unite his peole.

Ah, and you of course have figured out that many parts of bible are from other myths and legends of another cultures.
I'm sure tht Moses didn't spend his time wastely when growing near the royal library of Egypt.

*Originally posted by avatar
don't be so quick to say tht only for koran. I'm sure tht in bible the same is mentioned about egyptians, philistians[i think it spells different], inhabitants of sofom and gomor and so on.*

Nope, sorry.
It doesn't tell us to go around killing Egyptians, or philistines.
As for inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, there aren't any.

*And koran was mainly taken from christianity.*

How come the koran is against Christianity for the most part?

*Ah, and you of course have figured out that many parts of bible are from other myths and legends of another cultures.*

No, sorry.
I have figured out that other myths and legends are distortions of Christianity, though.

*I'm sure tht Moses didn't spend his time wastely when growing near the royal library of Egypt. *

He probably didn't, but why does Egypt end up looking like a loser, if the Bible was borrowed from Egypt?

"How come the koran is against Christianity for the most part? "
that is laid on the basis, the basic princips are the same.



"I have figured out that other myths and legends are distortions of Christianity, though. "

Christianity is about 2000 years old, but ancient cultures and theit myths 5000 and more years old. take Giglamesh for instance

"He probably didn't, but why does Egypt end up looking like a loser, if the Bible was borrowed from Egypt?"

I didn't say tht he liked egyptians. there are links which lead to assume tht in ancient egyptians gathered scrolls from all around.
So Moses had a lot myths, ceremonies etc to copy from.

Tony, just out of curiosity...... In the Old Testament, God clearly interacted with men, thru a promise made to Abraham, Isreal being the chosen people were led by Moses who was called by God and who was in fact devinly inspired to write the scriptures.

My thinking is that although it was Abraham who stood in the gap and recieved the promise finding favor with God and had his seed blessed and chosen by God.......there were in fact other people in the world, other cultures and countrys, or areas......God being the only God and creator of ALL men. Where in the Bible text does it say that God had no interaction with any other men any where in the world. Could not these other men have made personal accounts of things and tried to also write down their experiences and things they learned from their love of God to pass down to their children?
Even Paul attested to writting in a few personal notes beyond the divine inspiration.
Ok, So none of these men stood in the gap, or recieved the great promise or had their seed chosen to bear the savoir. But that doesn't nullify the fact that they may well have loved and worshipped the one true GOD! Correct? Perhaps that explains why we have similarities in acounts and teachings from way back in other cultures or ethnicitys. God does not change so it stands to reason that if they worshiped the one true God that their ideas and teachings would in fact closely resemble teachings in the Bible with out haveing been plagerized or twisted copies. ???????????

*Originally posted by Taken
there were in fact other people in the world, other cultures and countrys, or areas......God being the only God and creator of ALL men. Where in the Bible text does it say that God had no interaction with any other men any where in the world. Could not these other men have made personal accounts of things and tried to also write down their experiences and things they learned from their love of God to pass down to their children?*

Oh sure.
Since it all started with just two people, Adam and Eve, then by definition, everyone's creation accounts should be very similar.
Major differences would be accounted for by serious drug use, demonic inspiration or just plain lying (the dog ate my Bible, so I had to write a new one).

*But that doesn't nullify the fact that they may well have loved and worshipped the one true GOD! Correct? Perhaps that explains why we have similarities in acounts and teachings from way back in other cultures or ethnicitys. God does not change so it stands to reason that if they worshiped the one true God that their ideas and teachings would in fact closely resemble teachings in the Bible with out haveing been plagerized or twisted copies. ??????????? *

They might not be plagiarized, but that doesn't mean that they haven't been twisted.

Might I point out that the many many many denominations of the Christine church have done the same twisting to the divinely inspired account of God....so the difference would be what? The men loveing God and setting it to word for the teaching and edification of their seed had the best of intentions and then the generations that followed changed it to conform to their wants and needs. Either route you take you still gotta learn to eat the fish and spit out the bones.

*Originally posted by Taken
Either route you take you still gotta learn to eat the fish and spit out the bones. *

Of course, on the broad way that leads to destruction, it is all bones and no fish.
That's a tough way to learn that lesson.
I'd rather eat fish.

Dear Friends,
Actually the religious books said so many things which will be helpful to us to know about us and truth of the God.

We can take any number of meanings from words of those books.
Its depend on our way of thinking.I dont think that either
Bible or Kuran taught the people to kill the other community people.

We have to think once and twice before coming to a conclusion.
If something is there in the books we have to consider so many things.on which occassions that books have been written,what are the situations there at that time?, How is the social life,
like this we have to see so many constraints.

So,whether a book taught to kill others or a person taught ,
it is barbareous in present day world.
:)

*Originally posted by aswanikumar
I dont think that either Bible or Kuran taught the people to kill the other community people.*

You said that earlier.

---Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult or oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.---
Koran

The last time I quoted that I only boldfaced the relevant comments.
This time I underlined them, too.

We'll see if you read what's there, or if you read what you want.

By the posts you are posting one can assume that you are either Muslin, or you have found a place in the bible which says you to slay and kill others.
It is relly no difference - do it physically or spiritually.
But really Tony, I don't think tht Jesus wanted his ideas to be so offensive as you show it to us.

I replace "christianity" with "ideas of Jesus", when talking about real beleifs of Jesus, because what today is christianity, it is an insult to Jesus and Gods/God

*Originally posted by Avatar
By the posts you are posting one can assume that you are either Muslin, or you have found a place in the bible which says you to slay and kill others.*

Wow.
I used to think that only atheists thought backwards, but now I see I'll have to add pagans to the list.

Just out of curiosity, how did you come up with the most opposite possible meaning, assuming you weren't talking about cloth?

Ordinarily "opposite" needs no qualification, but after seeing your post, I may have revise my thinking.

Jesus is Lord
I thought Jesus was God's son?

Yes

Ah, so Jesus shares his Lordship with God? Or is he kinda like God's runner up? Public relations guy right? :rolleyes:

*Originally posted by Xelios
Ah, so Jesus shares his Lordship with God? Or is he kinda like God's runner up? Public relations guy right?*

For God has placed all things under Christ's feet. (But, when it is said that all things have been placed under Christ, it is plain that God is excepted who placed everything under him.)
And, when everything has been placed under him, the Son will place himself under God who placed everything under him, that God may be all in all!
(1 Corinthians 15:27,28, TCNT).

Amazing, an understandable Bible quote. Thanks tony.

---Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult or oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.---
Koran

Where does it say to kill others without reason. It says to kill those who fight you. And it also states that there are limits.

And didn't christianity take over all of europe, forcefully. Didn't christianity perform the brutal witch trials, forcing people trough foltering to confess.
Didn't they slay everyone in europe who wouldn't convert to christianity???

The Koran only says here to kill those who oppose you, something every country does today. Isn't america out to destroy Bin Laden for the attack on the 11th, And for other terrorist acts.

Originally posted by tony1

Wow.
I used to think that only atheists thought backwards
[/B]

Atheists are about the only ones who are thinking straight around these parts.

A friend of mine read a bible verse to me while we were in a hotel room from the hotel's bible. I don't know where it is exactly but I know it is in the old test. It said to tar and feather and stone your daughter to death if she had pre-marital sex. Now which is more evil(satanic), killing your kin, or killing your enemy?

Originally posted by aswanikumar
we are all humans.even animals wont kill the same kind animal.then being humans why we are killing our people. actually we (humans) are not totally alone in this respect - some insects (ants primarily) kill their own kind :D

Originally posted by Michael
actually we (humans) are not totally alone in this respect - some insects (ants primarily) kill their own kind :D
Does this mean it's natural? Yes or no?

originally posted byDethos
I don't know where it is exactly but I know it is in the old test. It said to tar and feather and stone your daughter to death if she had pre-marital sex.
The word tar only occurs three times in the Bible (Old and NT):
"They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. (Gen.11:3)
"Now the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits... (Gen.14:10)
"But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. (Ex.2:3)

originally posted by UnaMi
And didn't christianity take over all of europe, forcefully. Didn't christianity perform the brutal witch trials, forcing people trough foltering to confess.
Didn't they slay everyone in europe who wouldn't convert to christianity???
People took over other people. Hitler ordered the holocaust. Does that mean the "Germans" committed the holocaust? No. People who followed Hitler's orders did. Did Christians attack Iraq, or did Americans?

Who colonized North America? You did if you are not Native American. Are you where you belong? Because 9 chances out of 10, someone died so that you could have the priviledge of condemning others who did the same.

You can't point fingers if you are not doing something to stop such atrocities. If you can put a name on something, you are probably generalizing, and all generalizations should include yourself, because "in general" we are all part of the human race.

Originally posted by tony1
Yes

Stop it tony1. You are making fool of yourself.....................again. :D

even animals wont kill the same kind animal Tell that to gerbils. Of course, they ate the dead ones, so go figure.

People took over other people. Hitler ordered the holocaust. Does that mean the "Germans" committed the holocaust? No. People who followed Hitler's orders did. Did Christians attack Iraq, or did Americans?

This is all true, and I Agree. But I was just stating that it is not the Islam religion itself that is performing terorist acts, but indeed the people as you say! People hurt people, sometimes ordered by other people. but becouse of a few fanatics not an entre religion is at fault. Religion often gets used the aquire power and/or money.

I think one should look at the true nature of any religion, instead of the way it is practised today. Becouse biblical tekst are wrongly translated, sometimes on purpose. Things get added over the years, by people who try to use it to make money or gain power (an example for this is the cristian church, especially around the middle ages. Another example is bin laden, who uses his religion to perform terrorist acts).
If one is serious ablout his religion, if one is a real fanatic, then one should study its origins, to know what its all about. This way we can avoid having ignorant, conversations, based on dogmas, with people who are sheeps being used by their religious leaders.

Religion is always paired with a few dogmas. The most known Dogma is the thought of any God, magick or divinity existing.
But when you're religion is based on solely dogmas, then there is something wrong! Their has to be some form of logic and reasoning...

Originally posted by Jenyar
Does this mean it's natural? Yes or no? In regards to ants.
First - natural? What is meant by natural? Some ants are genetically programmed to attack other ants colonies (same species), fight to the death (killing all other ants OR they themselves die off completely) and, if they win, then carrying off the young foreign larval ants back to their colony and raise them as workers. Once the larval ants mature into new workers they tend to the needs of their new masters - without the knowledge that this is not their colony. It’s called slaving. Many times we hear of the Queen ant (just watch the cartoon Ants :) She’s usually thought of as controlling the colony. Using her daughters to her ends right? Not always, in the case of ants that do not slave, the genetic output for her is a ratio of about 3:1 (daughter ant genes relative to queen ant genes). In this sense they, the daughters, control the queen – and basically are using her as an ant-making factory (farming her out so to speak) making copies of them selves (which is the whole point). On the other hand, ants that do slave (for foreign ants to work the colony) this genetic output is not necessarily true. Because the daughters go on “slave-runs”, the queen now has a chance to gain control of the colony – in the sense of genetic output (while the daughters are away the Queen will play :) And as expected the ratio is now 1:1 – that is, queen ant genes relative to daughter ant genes in the next generation. The queen now has control (or as much as she can hope for).

So back to the original question – Yes, in some ants species it is natural (genetically programmed) to fight another ant colony to the death. What does this say about humans? Your guess is as good as mine.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Who colonized North America? You did if you are not Native American. Are you where you belong? Because 9 chances out of 10, someone died so that you could have the privilege of condemning others who did the same. Please clarify.

I didn’t colonize North America. Someone before me did. And more than likely somewhere in me are some DNA from a Native American (lots of interbreeding). So is that where I belong? Or ony a bit of me belongs there? I think: Why can’t I live anywhere on this planet so long as I’m not hurting someone else is the better question. Who’s to say I can’t move to Thailand and live there? Is that then where I belong? With this “someone died so that you could have the privilege of condemning others” sort of reasoning then maybe all continental Europeans don’t belong in Europe because their ancestors had to kill off all the Neanderthals in order to take the land :) Or is it ok AFTER genocide because then there is no one left to bitch about it? What of the Japanese history with the Ainu? Better send all 100 million of them packing? Do the modern Japanese having the privilege of condemning the Ainu? I doubt most Japanese nor modern day Ainu think one way or the other about it.

So back to the original question – Yes, in some ants species it is natural (genetically programmed) to fight another ant colony to the death. What does this say about humans? Your guess is as good as mine.
There are two possibilities: It is natural to be territorial, since we evolved that way, and the fact that we become emotional about how wrong wars are, is irrational. Or, [*edit for CA's clarification* it is natural to be territorial, but] it is unnatural for humans to kill - where we must ask: if the decision whether to kill or not to kill is only circumstantial, on what do we base that decision? And what authority makes that decision valid?

It's just interesting to see what happens when we follow our assumptions through.

Originally posted by Jenyar
There are two possibilities: It is natural to be territorial, since we evolved that way, and the fact that we become emotional about how wrong wars are, is irrational. Only two? For poor Jenyar-of-the-70-Books, everything is black or white. S/he sees no possibility that territoriality might be both natural and worthy of concern. Even though urinating and defecating when ever and where ever is natural, I'm sure we would all become concerned if we found that s/he were not toilet trained.

Of course territoriality is natural. My question, if you read carefully, is where does "concern" start? When does killing become an unwanted function of territoriality, if it is a natural instinct?

Indiscriminate defecation is arguably a hygenic, not a moral issue.

Did Jesus, Mohamed or Budha ever pick up arms? Or ever sanctioned the death of another... for ANY reason? No.

So what is it that causes ordinary people to committ atrocities to others in the name of religion? What is the overriding factor?

Short answer: Money and Power!

Religion is fundamentally supposed to be a spiritual pursuit, but it is obvious that the political is brought into it too, from external sources.

Differences in religion and historical conflicts* are used by countries' governments (and the International backers of those governments) to divide and rule populations, while seeds of contempt and hate are sown by strategic acts of violence apparently perpetrated by one religious group against another.

Is it shocking to hear that (for example) Indonesia's Western backed government sells arms and munitions to both, 'Muslim' and 'Christian' terror groups? That waves of attacks and atrocities sweep through villages almost on a daily basis, one day the Muslims, the next day the Christians, causing a chain reaction that can't be broken? Where the day following the carnage , the mixed religions people of the devastated villages actually HELP EACH OTHER to rebuild their town, in shock and amazement at what happened?

The perpetrators come and go, they could even be the same person's that attack both communities, but the seeds are sown and have been for a while now. Now there is a lush forest of hate growing and spreading everywhere.

The true perpetrators have now brought this to the west as well and people (being people) are falling into the trap as easily as all the others eg: 9/11=terrorists=Islamists=terrorists etc geddit?

Hate=mistrust=fear=irrational=controllable=power and money to third parties and all their cousins.



*Religious wars have always been politically motivated and have never had anything to do with any god.

Of course God is involved in holy wars. To people that believe in a God, it created everything, meaning God created death and murder and is the root of all evil. So if they are told by someone ,who they deemed to be talking to God, to kill then they will do it because to them God has ordered them to perform something that is natural(since it is based in creation) and righteous. It is politically and spiritualy based, but done for social reasons.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenyar
[B]Does this mean it's natural? Yes or no?


The word tar only occurs three times in the Bible (Old and NT):

Please spare me your ignorance. What do they exactly pour over their daughters before they are stoned to death by their parents and where is it at in the OT.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DethoS
[B]Of course God is involved in holy wars. To people that believe in a God, it created everything, meaning God created death and murder and is the root of all evil. So if they are told by someone ,who they deemed to be talking to God, to kill then they will do it because to them God has ordered them to perform something that is natural(since it is based in creation) and righteous. It is politically and spiritualy based, but done for social reasons.



It is done not for social reasons, but to create divisions. Divide and rule. It is done by certain charismatic religious outlaws who are in the pockets of international power mongers. God, in this context, is hijacked and used as the reason, against the victims of religious differences related outrages.

God, in this context, is hijacked

I agree strongly to this. And most of us on these forums know not to trust religious leaders blindly. But who will educate the people in Afghanistan and other countries, who are used by bin laden for his terrorist deeds. Who will educate the common folks who are used by the hijackers, so that they can see past the viels of disguise and manipulation.

I do not want the current world situation displayed here, I want the solution, althoug it may be a bit much to ask...

Why doesn't amerika pump millions in the education of Afganistan, instead of sending troops their, and investing in war equipment!?

To the perpetrators, this is the solution. They have the power and the means.

Originally posted by UnaMi
Why doesn't amerika pump millions in the education of Afganistan, instead of sending troops their, and investing in war equipment!? [/B]

America is investing in Afghanistan, but for its own benefit.

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp

Originally posted by tablariddim

It is done not for social reasons, but to create divisions. Divide and rule. It is done by certain charismatic religious outlaws who are in the pockets of international power mongers. God, in this context, is hijacked and used as the reason, against the victims of religious differences related outrages. [/B]

Aren't divisions and rule performed with not only social intentions, but with social operations? After all, there is a reason why the word polite is contained in the word political. Also, if there is a god, did he not create evil? If there is, would not the followers of it assume or absorb ideas of performing the evil which god had created for them to solve problems? Then, are Buddha and Jesus not opposed to this? Would they not be against god at least 5o%?

Originally posted by DethoS
Of course God is involved in holy wars. To people that believe in a God, it created everything, meaning God created death and murder and is the root of all evil. So if they are told by someone ,who they deemed to be talking to God, to kill then they will do it because to them God has ordered them to perform something that is natural (since it is based in creation) and righteous. It is politically and spiritualy based, but done for social reasons.
People who believe in God do not have to believe everything you believe about God. Death and sin are results, not creations. Do murderers create murder, or do they commit it? Nobody has the right to condemn anyone to death but God who also gives life. People can't give life, and therefore have no authority to take it. Sometimes justice demands it, but here is where people have to decide just how much justice will actually be served. If you condemn someone, you have to be prepared to receive condemnation by those same principles.

There are many things that are "natural" (in fact, if you truly believe in evolution, absolutely everything is natural) - but not everything is good, right, justifiable or God's will. Whether your intentions are politcal, spiritual or social, if you do not subject them to God, they will be ultimately personal and the question becomes: who are you unaccountable to?

If we are only "social animals", what are our responsibilities beyond reproduction and self-preservation? Do we really have any, or is morality an artificial invention, as some would have it?
Does this mean it's natural? Yes or no?
The word tar only occurs three times in the Bible (Old and NT):

Please spare me your ignorance. What do they exactly pour over their daughters before they are stoned to death by their parents and where is it at in the OT.
Nothing, that was my point - not tar, not feathers, just stones - hence the word "stoning".

Aren't divisions and rule performed with not only social intentions, but with social operations? After all, there is a reason why the word polite is contained in the word political. Also, if there is a god, did he not create evil? If there is, would not the followers of it assume or absorb ideas of performing the evil which god had created for them to solve problems? Then, are Buddha and Jesus not opposed to this? Would they not be against god at least 5o%?
You mean, is there an ethic of evil? Can a country politely take over another one, using all forms of brainwashing and propaganda, without resorting to physical agression? Probably - which is why politics exist, I suppose. But they should not be surprised if its people take it back much less politely. Somewhere there is always someone with an evil agenda, with good people working for him without their knowledge. Or someone with good intentions, with evil people undermining him. Ultimately, everybody answers only to themselves - unless they don't...

The message is simple: perform and tolerate no evil of any kind, because God does not condone it. God did not create evil (at least not the kind you envision), but some things we experience as "evil" which are only natural consequences. The natural consequence of rebellion against God is death. I.e, if you don't love, you are sinning.

PS. If the law is love, then does that also mean "love evil"? Of course not. Just as surely it does not follow that if God exists, everything must be caused by God. Darkness isn't light's "fault" or "creation".

Originally posted by DethoS
A friend of mine read a bible verse to me while we were in a hotel room from the hotel's bible. I don't know where it is exactly but I know it is in the old test. It said to tar and feather and stone your daughter to death if she had pre-marital sex. Now which is more evil(satanic), killing your kin, or killing your enemy?


Anyone that speaks to and acts out what God has told them to do
has been beguiled by their own Imagination.

They are False Prophets, Evil Doers.

The True God has No Name, can not be spoken of or to.

God is No Name, God is the Living Word, a Word that is the Name of No-Thing.

"It said to tar and feather and stone your daughter to death if she had pre-marital sex."

Pure Evil.

Originally posted by Jenyar
People who believe in God do not have to believe everything you believe about God. Death and sin are results, not creations. Do murderers create murder, or do they commit it? Nobody has the right to condemn anyone to death but God who also gives life. People can't give life, and therefore have no authority to take it. Sometimes justice demands it, but here is where people have to decide just how much justice will actually be served. If you condemn someone, you have to be prepared to receive condemnation by those same principles.

Well, that last sentence seems like a threat. How can you truly say what my beliefs are towards god? I merely stated an example of how evil exists. In the simple existence of this universe. You say evil is sin and a product of humans, when factually humans did not create sharks, rattlesnakes, poison ivy. Do these things perform good towards us? I also know that rape was created in our simple dualistic existence, because if we were all androgynous or neither male or female, we would be asexual, therefore sex would not exist(at least how know it), and there would be no chance of a rape ever occurring! Will not this body of mine die and decay, and get devoured by the worms? Will not my penis then cease to exist? Then, is love not on a different level totally, than this existence? Will my love for one cease because my penis is accidentely amputated? Then is it not possible for love to be the opposite of what we are forced into?

There are many things that are "natural" (in fact, if you truly believe in evolution, absolutely everything is natural) - but not everything is good, right, justifiable or God's will. Whether your intentions are politcal, spiritual or social, if you do not subject them to God, they will be ultimately personal and the question becomes: who are you unaccountable to?

Many religions seem to be very personal to me. All of the ministers and preachers and priests that I have personally seen have much more money than my mother. And she is 10 times the good person they are.

If we are only "social animals", what are our responsibilities beyond reproduction and self-preservation? Do we really have any, or is morality an artificial invention, as some would have it?

We are not only social animals. Responsibilities should be taught in truth. That is why I say this is an evil universe and we are the good. Any cult viewpoint is irrelevant, because we should help good to rule!

Nothing, that was my point - not tar, not feathers, just stones - hence the word "stoning".

Please answer the rest of the question and inform me where it is stated.

You mean, is there an ethic of evil? Can a country politely take over another one, using all forms of brainwashing and propaganda, without resorting to physical agression? Probably - which is why politics exist, I suppose. But they should not be surprised if its people take it back much less politely. Somewhere there is always someone with an evil agenda, with good people working for him without their knowledge. Or someone with good intentions, with evil people undermining him. Ultimately, everybody answers only to themselves - unless they don't...

Does that not mean that evil is a force among us that is rooted in creation simply because it is possible to succeed by using it?

The message is simple: perform and tolerate no evil of any kind, because God does not condone it. God did not create evil (at least not the kind you envision), but some things we experience as "evil" which are only natural consequences. The natural consequence of rebellion against God is death. I.e, if you don't love, you are sinning.

It doesn't seem so natural to me for someone to be tied to a tree and lit on fire. Besides, you just stated that when people of god perform death that they are doing it as an order of god, either through mysterious ways or natural. I think that the fact that we have to kill to eat, is proof that life is based in evil.

PS. If the law is love, then does that also mean "love evil"? Of course not. Just as surely it does not follow that if God exists, everything must be caused by God. Darkness isn't light's "fault" or "creation".

Your right, red(or darkness as you know it), is not a fault of blue(lightness), they exist alongside each other, before us. They are opposites. Just to be honest I have come to the belief of no belief. That's right, i don't believe there is a god nor do I believe there is not a god. Both are irrelevant possibilities to me because I see us all as brothers and sisters. And I know that there is another "force" to this life that can't be explained by science or naturalness(at least technically), where others only have a belief. Finally, everything is caused by God indirectly because he created it and made it possible for a being to succeed in that manner, but directly he is not to blame for a humans personal decision, or for the reason that some people can't think for themselves and that they automatically assume that since the No. 1 cult in our world got there with performing evil and hiding it, and proclaiming they were gonna destroy evil itself, that it was perfomed by god itself! You see, I see this goodness in every religion, unfortunatly it can be plaguerized and destroyed and hidden and used for evil purposes.

Originally posted by Jenyar
People who believe in God do not have to believe everything you believe about God. Death and sin are results, not creations. Do murderers create murder, or do they commit it? Using your logic one could say: ergo God didn't create sin, God committed sin.

It’s kind of funny isn’t it? Trying to explain this nonsense. Simply put, if god created the universe with the foreknowledge that his creations would suffer horribly then he is an evil psychopath.
Agreed? Good.
Everyone here would agree that an “all powerful” being – one that created the universe and life itself (from nothingness) - does have the ability to create conscious "free-willed" creatures that do not have to suffer and can still gain whatever insights “he” wants them to gain. So, you can blame it on Eve, you can wiggle this way and that, you can prattle on about an all loving god, bla bla bla ... but when you boil it down to first principals it’s this:

When given the choice of
1) creating a universe in which “people” do not suffer and live in peace in a paradise and
2) the choice of creating a universe where some people horribly suffer in the worst imaginable ways.

If that being then chooses the later – then that creature/god is an evil psychopath. Anyone with an once of sanity would agree to that.

Originally posted by Michael
Using your logic one could say: ergo God didn't create sin, God committed sin.

When given the choice of
1) creating a universe in which “people” do not suffer and live in peace in a paradise and
2) the choice of creating a universe where some people horribly suffer in the worst imaginable ways.

If that being then chooses the later – then that creature/god is an evil psychopath. Anyone with an once of sanity would agree to that.
By your logic:

God had the choice of
1) creating a universe in which "people" do not suffer and live in peace in a paradise where He is God, not them
2) the choice of creating a universe where some people experience love, companionship, freedom and friendship in the most unimaginable ways.

And chose first 1, then 2 - both. And any sane person can see God's benevolence and mercy.

Let me tell you what went wrong:
1) Adam became convinced God lied about the severe consequences of rebellion and wanted to become like God
2) Cnsequently he had to assume the responsibilities of having to "be like God" - along with having to care for himself and his wife, and to enforce his own peace because He rejected God's peace by disobeying God's authority.

And the results are still the same. Suffering only exists outside paradise. We have the choice to live here trying to be the "gods" of our world and causing people to suffer, or we can turn back to God and start living according to the purpose for which He created us in the first place.

Originally posted by Jenyar-of-th-70-Books
1) Adam became convinced God lied about the severe consequences of rebellion and wanted to become like God From which of your "70 Books" of the Septuagint did you learn this, and when (and by whom) do you think it was written?

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
From which of your "70 Books" of the Septuagint did you learn this, and when (and by whom) do you think it was written?
Genesis. God told Adam that disobedience would bring death,Adam and Eve were tempted to disobey, their sin caused their expulsion from paradise, and eventually they did die - as we still do.

It probably originated during pre-Sumerian times and was just one of many. Myths and metaphors might be myths and metaphors, but what they point to - their truth - speaks for itself. Since the pattern is still visible in our lives today, it is a dependable account. It was told, memorized, later written down and accepted by the people God chose for His covenant. It has since been a reference for all His people.

If you doubt its truth, please feel free to refute it based on its principles or morals, since nothing else can be reconstructed from it.

Jenyar, I understand the myth of Adam and Eve.

You seem to dance around the questions so lets be straight forward about this. Please just answer “yes” or “no” to the questions before writing any additional information. What I do not want is for you to re-write my questions to suit you and then for you to answer your own questions as you see fit.

These are the questions I have. They are valid questions. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. If you don't know the answer/or have an opinion that's OK, just don't answer.

1) Before creating the universe did god already know man would make the choices that would lead to some of humanity suffering in the worst imaginable ways?
Yes or No

2) Does god have the ability to create a universe where conscious "free-willed" creatures do not have to suffer and can still gain whatever insights “he” wants them to gain?
Yes or No

3) Is any god that has a desire for people to suffer in the most horrible ways imaginable a f*cking psychopath?
Yes or No?

If you answered Yes to #1 and #2 then we are in agreement that “god” 1) knew before he created the universe that man would make the choices that would eventuate in massive human suffering and 2) when given the choice of creating a universe where #1 didn’t occur “he” instead choose to create a universe where he knew beforehand people would suffer horridly. As that is the case in this universe then, I think, we can agree that god is a f*cking psychopath.

#1) = [ ]
#2) = [ ]
#3) = [ ]

Clarification below here:

actually we (humans) are not totally alone in this respect - some insects (ants primarily) kill their own kind

What the hell is everyone on? Animals kill their own kind all of the time. Chimps go on random murder sprees and engage in cannibalism. Felines devour inferior kittens. Sharks sometimes kill eachother during mating. Wolves battle other packs. The list goes on.

but is any religion preached its followers to kill orther people?.we are all humans.even animals wont kill the same kind animal.then being humans why we are killing our people.

How about Odalism, in particular the cult of Odin? Odin demanded constant human sacrifice and bloodshed. How about the Aztecs, the Celts, or the Romans?

Originally posted by and2000x
What the hell is everyone on? Animals kill their own kind all of the time. Chimps go on random murder sprees and engage in cannibalism. Felines devour inferior kittens. Sharks sometimes kill eachother during mating. Wolves battle other packs. The list goes on. yes animals kill their own kind (although in general they poster). If you continue to read a couple posted down you’ll see a fuller explanation. In short: some ants (obviously as a group) systematical attack another ant colony (of the same species) and fight until either they are completely killed off or they completely kill every ant in the other colony. A wolf attacking another wolf is a completely different situation. What would be the same is a pack of wolves attacking another pack of wolves and both packs fighting until one group is completely eliminated. This doesn’t occur. Neither do sharks nor chimps behave in such a manner. A cat eating kittens isn’t the same either. A group of cats attacking another group of cats until one group is completely killed off would be the same. That doesn’t occur. No other animal that I can think of acts in this way (other than humans that is).

Neither do sharks nor chimps behave in such a manner. A cat eating kittens isn’t the same either. A group of cats attacking another group of cats until one group is completely killed off would be the same. That doesn’t occur. No other animal that I can think of acts in this way (other than humans that is).

Yes it does jew bag. Cats practice a form of eugenics. You see, female cats have the ability to be pregnant with the litters of two different males. If the male cat finds out, be it through scent, or witness, or the death of the other father, he will kill all of the newborn kittens, then impregnate the mother again. This occurs in lions as well and acts as a device to get rid of inferior genes.

Cannibalism is well documented among chimps, I thought everyone knew this. Chimps will attack another family of chimps and completely kill them for no know reason. This may show our roots of war.

Originally posted by and2000x
Yes it does jew bag. meow .. catty today aren’t we? Maybe, pull your panties out? They're in a bunch.

Originally posted by and2000x
Cats practice a form of eugenics. You see, female cats have the ability to be pregnant with the litters of two different males. If the male cat finds out, be it through scent, or witness, or the death of the other father, he will kill all of the newborn kittens, then impregnate the mother again. This occurs in lions as well and acts as a device to get rid of inferior genes.
This may be true but isn't what I was talking about. It's nice that you make a totally different statement and then complete it by answering yourself. One wonders why you posted in the first place. Just sit in front of the mirror and babble away :)

Good job!

Originally posted by and2000x
Cannibalism is well documented among chimps, I thought everyone knew this. Chimps will attack another family of chimps and completely kill them for no know reason. This may show our roots of war. Chimpanzees have been observed practicing cannibalism - although rarely. Although my post wasn’t about cannibalism. However, as you said cannibalism is well documented. Not just in Chimps either. Regardless, there may be a point here. And, it’s good that you have made it. Not too many people like to show how their earlier posting was a bit hasty and not well thought out - in essence wrong. Which is why this one is much better – as you clarify you’re misconceptions of your first posting.

Good job!

Here’s one. You see, animals mate. When a male finds a female they have been observed to mate. It’s well documented and also beside the point.

It was stated that animals don't kill their own kind. What am I misinformed about?

Yes by aswanikumar. I didn’t say that. What I said was humans aren’t the only animals that kill their own kind. And then gave ants as an example.

Originally posted by Michael
These are the questions I have. They are valid questions. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. If you don't know the answer/or have an opinion that's OK, just don't answer.

1) Before creating the universe did god already know man would make the choices that would lead to some of humanity suffering in the worst imaginable ways?
Yes

2) Does god have the ability to create a universe where conscious "free-willed" creatures do not have to suffer and can still gain whatever insights “he” wants them to gain?
Yes

3) Is any god that has a desire for people to suffer in the most horrible ways imaginable a f*cking psychopath?
Yes

If you answered Yes to #1 and #2 then we are in agreement that “god” 1) knew before he created the universe that man would make the choices that would eventuate in massive human suffering and 2) when given the choice of creating a universe where #1 didn’t occur “he” instead choose to create a universe where he knew beforehand people would suffer horridly. As that is the case in this universe then, I think, we can agree that god is a f*cking psychopath.

Clarification below here:
#1) But man did not have to make the choice. God knew He would still love them, would be able to save them from such a world, and that some would make the decision not to cause suffering and stay on the right path, in a position and able to help those who were suffering.

God knew it was a possibilty, but it wasn't a certainty. He trusted us, and still does. Some people still have no idea what causes suffering, or deny that they are causing it by their selfishness.

#2) ... and He has. Twice, going on thrice. He knows everybody who will ever be born. His rules are still clear, and he still trusts us to live and raise our children the right way. The warning is still the same: sin will cause death. But we decide whether we want a part of paradise, and He accepts our decision either way.

We were expelled from the paradise you describe because we brought sin into it, and we won't enter it again if we still carry sin with us.

#3) He doesn't desire suffering or evil, that is why there are rules. These rules are the conditions for re-entering the gates of paradise. God knew that not even suffering and sin would be able to separate us from His love. Sin and suffering are foreign to God, and will forever be foreign to His will, His kingdom, and paradise.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Consider this metaphor: God built a fine house, and populated it with fitting inhabitants. He warned them not to make fire inside, because the house is built with wood. But He trusted them with freedom. Then someone who was jealous of their house because he burnt down his own, offered them a light and said God would just provide a new house if this one burnt down.

We are now living in a burning house, trying to save as many people for the new house that God did provide.

15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Corinthians 3)

Yes by aswanikumar. I didn’t say that. What I said was humans aren’t the only animals that kill their own kind. And then gave ants as an example.

Then why are you attacking me Mike? If we agree that animals kill their own kind, why are you confronting me and saying they don't? :confused:

Wait, I see the problem. I quoted YOU, thus you thought I was attacking your argument. You got confused when I meant to get at aswanikumar. Oh well, lets drop it.

#1) But man did not have to make the choice.
God knew that by creating this universe (in this manner) that man would make the choice he made and god would have the pleasure of punishing man. Not only in this life but perhaps, for a few, in the next as well. Of course if god is all powerful he could have avoided the situation entirely. As god already knew what choice man would make and also set the circumstances up in such a way so as to force man to make the choice – well then we can agree man did not have a choice in the matter. God had already made the choice for him prior to creating the universe.

God knew He would still love them, would be able to save them from such a world, and that some would make the decision not to cause suffering and stay on the right path, in a position and able to help those who were suffering. So what your saying is if a child abuser loves his children then it’s OK to abuse them. Yeah, great. It sounds to me like your defending a pedophile and doing a poor job of it.

God knew it was a possibility, but it wasn't a certainty. Jenyar, this is wrong. It should read God knew it was a certainty man would sin before he even created man. God doesn’t do possibles he only works in already knowns

1) He created the players (/the people)
2) He created the situation (/the definition of sin)
3) He created the outcome (/the future itself)
To punish man for god’s sin seems a little masochistic to me.

He trusted us, and still does. What do you mean here? Don’t forget he already knows the outcome. I don’t think “trust” is a workable verb for god.

Some people still have no idea what causes suffering, and some know suffering in ways that we can not even imagine. So what’s the point?

or deny that they are causing it by their selfishness. This is true. (but honestly this sentence is of god’s actions if you think about it).

#2) ... and He has. Twice, going on thrice. He knows everybody who will ever be born. Of course.

His rules are still clear, Is that why there are 1000s of different religions with 1000s of different rules?

and he still trusts us to live and raise our children the right way.
1) God doesn’t “trust”. That is not a useable verb for god. Trust in this sense involves an element of unknown and that isn’t possible with god.
2) Why should it matter how we raise out children? Oh, I see. Here you demonstrate that even you understand the unfairness of this game god is playing. He doesn’t give everyone an equal break does he? That’s why you feel it’s important to “teach” your children what god expects from them. If everyone was treated equal it wouldn’t matter what you teach them, right? Just another funny quark of god.

The warning is still the same: Why warn people you have already condemned to begin with? Why play the game out? So that god can say to the person – well you had your chance. You see how ridiculous this sounds. If god is going to make a brand new universe with wonderful people then why didn’t he do it the first time? So that he can have the pleasure of condemning some people to horrid fates (either here on Earth, in the afterlife, or both). If he already knows the outcome then why not just create a wonderful universe to begin with? Which leads us to the original statement: So that god can say to the person – well you had your chance. Sounds petty and masochistic to me. Yeah – OK that is how god works.

sin will cause death. This is not true. A fetus can die. Is a fetus sinning Jenyar? A baby can die – is a baby sinning Jenyar?

Death is a direct result of biological functions not “sin”.

But we decide whether we want a part of paradise, and He accepts our decision either way. He made the decision – so nice of him to accept his own decision.

We were expelled from the paradise you describe because we brought sin into it, and we won't enter it again if we still carry sin with us. 1) Where did we get this “sin” from. We made it ourselves?
2) As we agreed god already knew the outcome. Not only that he made it so that it was impossible to have any other outcome except the one that came about. Impossible for any other outcome. We already agreed to that. So we were expelled from paradise because that’s the way god likes it. Therefore “Sin” was just an excuse so god could say: See I gave you your chance.

#3) He doesn't desire suffering or evil, Sure he does. As the creater of the universe god created suffering. The concept itself was a creation of god. He could have created a 14 dimension pure energy universe where suffering was never a possibility. So why create a universe where it is possibility – one would ONLY do that if one had a secret desire for that very suffering to take place. And if one already knew in advance it would take place – well then I would say that is one sick puppy.

that is why there are rules. These rules are the conditions for re-entering the gates of paradise. Gee how nice of god. Create suffering and then create rules to get around suffering (at least after you die your horrible death). Wow what a great guy God is!

God knew that not even suffering and sin would be able to separate us from His love. This analogy doesn’t make sense. God created the universe specifically to lead to suffering. Why would our suffering separate us from god? He created the “concept” of suffering when he created this universe.

Sin and suffering are foreign to God, and will forever be foreign to His will, His kingdom, and paradise. This really is making no sense. What do you mean foreign to God?
1) Does god know what sin and suffering are?
2) Did god know before he created the universe that it would contain sin and suffering?
3) Did god know the pain, suffering, and sin each person would commit before he even made the universe?
4) When given the choice of making a universe where suffering and sin where not possible and making one where suffering and sin where not ONLY possibilities but inevitable outcomes. God choose the later.

Sounds to me that God knows all about suffering and sin. There’s as close to god as stink is to shit.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Only one son? Hmmm? I wonder why god didn’t give his one and only daughter. If you think of the suffering women have endured over the millennia a quick crucifixion would be a walk in the park. Secondly – he “gave his son”. Sounds good but means nothing. “gave” please spell out in absolute specific detail what you mean by gave. No metaphor no cliché. Just exactly and simply what you mean here. Second explain why. Why does god have to give anything? He can do what he wants. Also – define “son”. How is that different than a godly “daughter”? How is a godly son different from any people?

Consider this metaphor: God built a fine house, and populated it with fitting inhabitants. These were peoples. They were like children and didn’t know right from wrong (what ever that means). He warned them not to make fire inside, because the house is built with wood. He could have made the house of stone or made a field the house so that burning it down wasn’t a possibility. But no God knew that making a house like that wouldn’t give him the satisfaction of watching it burn. And he so wanted to see it burn. Because god could see the future he knew that only wood would give him this satisfaction that he secretly desired. So he made it from the driest wood he could fine and then set about leaving matches and gasoline all around the house But He trusted them with freedom. Freedom per say. Freedom to only do as god knew they would. As god knew what each and every one of them would do they didn’t really have freedom at all. But god didn’t care. He just wanted one of them to light a match so they would all burn and melt and scream in pain and agony. And then god could later say – I told you not to make a fire. So its all your fault not mine not mine not mine .. But it took a long time and god got really bored waiting for them to burn it down and writhe in pain so he created someone to help the child-like peoples out . Then that someone was made by god to feel jealous – another little concept god added to his universe so that he could get the fire going. He first made sure that this new creation would burn his own house down and then made him look at how wonderful these peoples supper dry-wood house was. The someone who was jealous of their house because he burnt down his own, offered them a light and said God would just provide a new house if this one burnt down. The child like peoples not knowing better took the matches and burnt their house down. God sat back laughing manically as he watched each and every one of them suffer in ways only one so evil as god could imagine. As they reached up for water he pushed them back into the house. Then he got a new thought. He would make the dead people suffer as well. This gave god so much more satisfaction because it would go on and on and he could watch it forever. He could also blame it on them – I mean it was they who burnt their house – he only built it of wood, put the matches in it with gas and then created someone to trick them into lighting a match.

One day while god was away torturing another innocent peoples he created in beta-7, the people stopped believing in him and in a “poof” he winked out of existence and the people that were left lived happily ever after .

Originally posted by and2000x
Wait, I see the problem. I quoted YOU, thus you thought I was attacking your argument. You got confused when I meant to get at aswanikumar. Oh well, lets drop it. No you called me a (and I quote) "Jew bag". Ok lets drop it.

I believe that when I sin, and when i make others suffer, that it isn't God's fault.

I also believe that when i do good things, and make other people suffer less, that isn't becouse of God either.

God may have created this earth, but I don't think my destiny exists, I do not believe that all my choises and expieriences in life are all laid out by some God. I believe I have my own choises, and can define my own path.

And I believe every man/ woman can. I do believe that some entity is responsible for the creation of this world, but i don't believe that he can predict the future so accuratly that he could see what would happen now, or in the future. Perhaps he had a general idea, but the world isn't So bad is it? things aren't black or white, there is grey as well.

But honestly, I don't believe in a God as a knowing, thinking person. I think of God as the chaotic energy that is within us, and around us.

i agree that there is much suffering in this world, but there is also much joy here, perhaps even more. There are millions of people, able to live a happy life, and there are also millions of people living in poor conditions. But I don't think God as you tink of him, has something to do with it.

No mather how all seeing he is, i refuse to believe that I have no choises in life, becouse if all is already planned for me, then i have no life.
Then i just do what he tells me to do, thus I do not exist, i have no intelligence. I am nothing more than an cpu enemy in a computer game, following a pre-defined story line. And I resent that thought, becouse if I was just a puppet in a theater play, then I wouldn't be able to state my opinion here.

I make my own choises, and if i hurt other people, then God hasn't got anything to do with it. Becouse the only way he could prevent me from ever hurting another person, is to take away my freedom of choise.

Micheal, your reasoning makes perfect sense, if god knew everything we would do. The choises we would make, the people we would hurt, the wars we would create. Then I agree with you, if god is as you say he is. But I don't believe God is that way. And I don't believe God could know all this.

But sadly enough, neither of us can prove how it is exactly, so we are both right, unless you know God personal and know what kind of person he is, if he is a person. :D

My apologies for the long post, but I want to address your questions as best as I could...
Originally posted by Michael
God knew that by creating this universe (in this manner) that man would make the choice he made and god would have the pleasure of punishing man. Not only in this life but perhaps, for a few, in the next as well. Of course if god is all powerful he could have avoided the situation entirely. As god already knew what choice man would make and also set the circumstances up in such a way so as to force man to make the choice – well then we can agree man did not have a choice in the matter. God had already made the choice for him prior to creating the universe.
This is the classic puppetmaster fallacy. I'll emphasize it for your convenience: we have been given true free will - not some wool-over-our-eyes, God-actually-does-everything lie.

So what your saying is if a child abuser loves his children then it’s OK to abuse them. Yeah, great. It sounds to me like your defending a pedophile and doing a poor job of it.
Man abused, God saved.

Jenyar, this is wrong. It should read God knew it was a certainty man would sin before he even created man. God doesn’t do possibles he only works in already knowns

1) He created the players (/the people)
2) He created the situation (/the definition of sin)
3) He created the outcome (/the future itself)
To punish man for god’s sin seems a little masochistic to me.
Puppetmaster/clockmaker fallacy. God created, we climbed out from under His sustainance, becoming our own authority - and having to fight our own battles. God only approves of His original creation, what people have made out of it is against His will.

What do you mean here? Don’t forget he already knows the outcome. I don’t think “trust” is a workable verb for god.
Why not? We either live dependent or independent of God. He knows the outcome of our decisions, but He does not make them for us. He trusts our good judgement, our patience, tolerance, love - our free will. What He did do was warn us which choices would lead where. Suffering is a warning in itself, because of injustice, but not a punishment.

and some know suffering in ways that we can not even imagine. So what’s the point?

This is true. (but honestly this sentence is of god’s actions if you think about it).
The point is that you can hardly use suffering as a gauge of God's involvement, because suffering is a human condition. God identified with our suffering through Jesus - who sufferred most innocently, so that we might have hope of surviving it. God did not plan His creation to make himself suffer, but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.

The third creation I was talking about is his new kingdom. But this one will be as you described it in #2 (and much more): no sin can enter it, and all choices will have been made eternal. The downside is that those who choose sin or guilty of sin can't enter it.

Just as the condition of peace is non-violence, the condition for paradise is sinlessness.

Is that why there are 1000s of different religions with 1000s of different rules?
There aren't that many different sets of rules, when you start looking into it. You basically have a few angles:

1) Personal natural gods: watching you from a distance, and you have find ways to please them and find favour with them. Here "laws" are basically ways of manipulating the gods to work for you - prevalent in "pagan" and animalistic religions.

2) Impersonal natural gods (like Medicine*Woman's): who are basically reduntant as "religions", because the gods is whatever you want it to be and has no external influence. Every person is a law unto himself, and the worst consequence of breaking any "law" is your own loss of spirituality. It is our centre - we are its personality.

3) Impersonal supernatural gods: The cosmic unknowable gods who are almost just as irrelevant because they are so far removed from "creation" (or so much part of it), that they have no discernable "interface". We are simply a facet or a figment of this kind of god, and their laws are indiscernable from nature itself. We are its centre, simply from a point of perspective.

4) Personal supernatural gods: gods who expect, who act, who can be understood from within a human paradigm, but are "foreign" to it. Their laws are independent but also reveal their own "personal" nature, and points of reference with people. They are known by divine revelation and "avatars", like messiahs, prophets, sages, etc. The Judaio/Christian/Muslim God falls into this category.

Many problems arise when you confuse the differences. For instance, an impersonal supernatural god cannot be known, for it has no "common ground" with it creation, and there is nothing to know other than what you can learn on your own - but a personal supernatural god can make himself known to his creation, and is able to identify with it at least on a personal level, if not a supernatural one. The definitions of attributes like omniscience, omnipresence, etc. are also affected: a personal natural god is usually territorial and unpredictable, like a "god-animal", while an impersonal natural god is like a "soul of nature" - nature is its presence, its senses and expressions.


1) God doesn’t “trust”. That is not a useable verb for god. Trust in this sense involves an element of unknown and that isn’t possible with god.
2) Why should it matter how we raise out children? Oh, I see. Here you demonstrate that even you understand the unfairness of this game god is playing. He doesn’t give everyone an equal break does he? That’s why you feel it’s important to “teach” your children what god expects from them. If everyone was treated equal it wouldn’t matter what you teach them, right? Just another funny quark of god.
1) (Impersonal) Puppetmaster fallacy.
2) The starting point is the same: everybody are equally "creations of God", with equal value. Everybody everywhere has purpose and a valid reason for existing. Not immediately evident in our relationship with them, but implicit in their relationship with their creator. Children grow up first among their parents and siblings, second among their peers, third in their society, etc. Values and experiences start at home. Bad parents raise children with bad rolemodels, bad experiences, and little trust or self-worth, so does their children, and so on. God's laws were for adults first, and then children are ordered to honour their parents.

God treats everybody with equal respect, but they can lose His respect by harming those He loves, or ignoring Him - because He knows their children will usually bear the consequences. He meant children to be humanity's future, which started with Cain and Abel. Whose child was Cain? His sinful parents'. And Abel? God's - he rose above the legacy of sin, and loved God. The difference wasn't their financial status, success, or even their circumstances: it was whether they followed God or not.


Why warn people you have already condemned to begin with? Why play the game out? So that god can say to the person – well you had your chance. You see how ridiculous this sounds. If god is going to make a brand new universe with wonderful people then why didn’t he do it the first time? So that he can have the pleasure of condemning some people to horrid fates (either here on Earth, in the afterlife, or both). If he already knows the outcome then why not just create a wonderful universe to begin with? Which leads us to the original statement: So that god can say to the person – well you had your chance. Sounds petty and masochistic to me. Yeah – OK that is how god works.
Whatever condemnation God gives is deserved. Not because we are born to deserve it, but because we prove we deserve it. Choice comes first, consequences after - cause, then effect. Paradise -> sin -> Paradise without sin/Death with sin

God establishes a complete universe along with its governing laws and parameters permitting free will, interest, beauty, experience, etc. -> people sin -> sin and paradise cannot co-exist -> people out of paradise -> our lives are affected by decay and death -> God provides a means to maintain contact, get back and regain life.

This is not true. A fetus can die. Is a fetus sinning Jenyar? A baby can die – is a baby sinning Jenyar?

Death is a direct result of biological functions not “sin”.
If you stare yourself blind against physical decay leading to physical death (governed by an indiscriminate nature) - then there is no justice, just death and taxes. But if you realize this world is a decaying paradise and that you are trapped in its decay, you can start thinking about moral decay and [/i]spiritual[/i] death, where their can be justice, mercy, love, and all those wonderful abstracts, governed by God. We are to nature as God is to us. But we and nature are both temporal creations, whereas God is eternal and supernatural. We can only delay, manage and subvert - but God can lift up and out and create. We were extremely fortunate that someone like Noah existed, and that God was persuaded to keep His original creation - us. We can make this world a better place for each other, or just sit like Job on a heap of rubbish and feel sorry for ourselves.

We live in a world we can change. We have that power. But death comes to us all, because we live in a world ruled by it. Sin plunged us into such a world, and only God can save us from sin. Our own best efforts only scratch the bottom of paradise.

He made the decision – so nice of him to accept his own decision.
So now you don't think you have free will anymore? Then howcome you have the option not to believe me, if what I said was true? It's up to you to decide whether you accept God's decision, or reject it (and his offered hand of help) and live with your limited freedom - complete enough for this world, but woefully insufficient for the next.

I acept whatever happened has happened, and that I am too simple or ignorant to understand God - but I realized how my life could hurt people who have no control over me, so I give myself over to God's control - and I've never been more free. The fact that I can help people even though I am in need of help myself, shows that God can help me. Death is advancing on me like a wall, but it won't stop me. It is a wall that belongs to a decaying nature, not a supernatural eternity.

If I could see God, I would be worried that He might die as well... wait, that has already happened...


1) Where did we get this “sin” from. We made it ourselves?
2) As we agreed god already knew the outcome. Not only that he made it so that it was impossible to have any other outcome except the one that came about. Impossible for any other outcome. We already agreed to that. So we were expelled from paradise because that’s the way god likes it. Therefore “Sin” was just an excuse so god could say: See I gave you your chance.
1) We inherited it from the first rebel: Rebellion itself, the Lie that told us we could be God, and there is no God. Now we live in that self-created world where "there is no God" - a world of sin.
2) He "set us up for a fall"? If I could believe that I would be an atheist in the strongest sense of the word. Think about what you are saying for a second. What if I tell you God knew for certain that had Even not listened to the tempter but continued to listen to God, we would be living in paradise... did that happen? Yet even we know that would have been the outcome. Where is the weakness of the argument? In the uninfluenced and unadulterated, independent human choice.

A human without choice would not be human being at all, much less "created in God's image". With the gift of free will comes the crisis of decision, and the burden of choice.

Sure he does. As the creater of the universe god created suffering. The concept itself was a creation of god. He could have created a 14 dimension pure energy universe where suffering was never a possibility. So why create a universe where it is possibility – one would ONLY do that if one had a secret desire for that very suffering to take place. And if one already knew in advance it would take place – well then I would say that is one sick puppy.
Let me describe paradise again in other words: everything was created "good" - everything in its place and as it should be, and should have stayed. But by a convolution of free will, rebellion, selfishness, greed, temptation and relegation of responsibility, some things stepped outside their place and purpose. God knew in advance it would happen if those rules were ignored, which is probably why he warned Adam and Even not to "eat from that tree", don't you think? I think it's very likely precisely why. But things escaped, and people were tempted to step outside the circle of life.

A person who can suffer can also feel. A person who feel can touch, and a person who can touch can create. Our ability to experience our world depends on our senses. You can reverse engineer it and end up with no creation, but that is hardly what God had in mind when He ordered the chaos.

Gee how nice of god. Create suffering and then create rules to get around suffering (at least after you die your horrible death). Wow what a great guy God is!
By coming to earth to serve his creation, having Himself nailed to a cross and suffer the agony of death, to free us from it, and to prove to us for our sake that even death is subjected to God. I know of no greater guy...

This analogy doesn’t make sense. God created the universe specifically to lead to suffering. Why would our suffering separate us from god? He created the “concept” of suffering when he created this universe.
The concept of suffering existed only like darkness exists where there is no light. Suffering exists away from God, outside is will. He only included it for our sake, so that those who suffer might still have hope. If it was truly outside God's reach, nobody would have any hope. In God's creation, suffering had no power, but it gained power as we moved away from God. Did God create the antichrist? Indirectly, yes, because without Christ there would be no antichrist - but without Christ the antichrist would have just have ruled us without a name...

This really is making no sense. What do you mean foreign to God?
1) Does god know what sin and suffering are?
2) Did god know before he created the universe that it would contain sin and suffering?
3) Did god know the pain, suffering, and sin each person would commit before he even made the universe?
4) When given the choice of making a universe where suffering and sin where not possible and making one where suffering and sin where not ONLY possibilities but inevitable outcomes. God choose the later.
1) Sin is rebellion against God, so He knows well what it is, but is logically not affected by it. With suffering, however, He is personally acquainted
2) There was no sin when it was just God, so there was nothing to know about it. It is not a force, it's just a word describing a concept. Same with suffering. As I said, it had no power, no manifestation, no force.
3) Hard for me to say - it's not really a part of God we can have knowledge about. I'd say each person was born out of and into known circumstances. If if the eventual destination is known, it is not decided by anyone other than the person him/herself.
4) God was not "given" the choice in such simple terms: it was a choice to create the universe or just leave it. A world of suffering and sin was possible in all circumstances in which we could exist not as mindless unfeeling robotic beings, but as humans with free will, made in God's image. Questioning the "options" serves no real purpose, because in a reality the only options are the ones we can make. God is not a man - even if we knew the options we could not even begin to ponder the alternatives.

Sounds to me that God knows all about suffering and sin. There’s as close to god as stink is to shit.
...Because God is still with us. It didn't abandon those who still believe in Him to such a world, no matter how disagreeable it is to Him. Jesus prayed: "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one."

This world is not just one "of suffering and sin" - it has given me two wonderful parents who love me, a brother and two sisters, buddies I've known for 13 years, a gorgeous ex-girlfriend, and even more gorgeous (as yet unmet) future wife ;) two dogs, people I can care for and people who care for me. Sunsets, poetry, music, beaches and sundowners on summer holidays... thanks to God. I will fight jealously for anyone who is being hurt by someone's selfishness or agression, because I have experienced such injustice and hurt myself - I know it can be avoided; and so can most suffering and sin.

Only one son? Hmmm? I wonder why god didn’t give his one and only daughter. If you think of the suffering women have endured over the millennia a quick crucifixion would be a walk in the park. ... Also – define “son”. How is that different than a godly “daughter”? How is a godly son different from any people?.
"Son" is just a word we have been created with (nice double meaning). As a term it signifies a broad set of meanings and relationships that God wanted us not only be familiar with, but to apply to Him as well. Why not daughter? It might just as well have been, but for natural reasons (possibly because of characteristics inherently "masculine" and "feminine") cultures developed associating power, rule and authority as masculine properties and love, care and emotion with feminine. God frequently described His people as His bride - another indication of relationship. Just like the seven-day week, "marriage" did not come out of nowhere.

First Jewish and then Christian understanding of God has always been based on rhethoric that has been built up. As in all dialogue, underanding is a result, not a precondition. For Adam, just knowing God was enough, but eventually as selfish people like Cain were born, and paradise first became legend and then myth, people probably wanted to know more and less about God - just as now. Knowledge of God became a science called "religion", but from Abraham onwards, a dictionary of words, laws and usage was being built up that could only make sense within a context of suffering, persecution, enslavement. and salvation. Judaism and Christianity are called redemptive and salvific religions - teaching a path of redemption and salvation - words that have almost no meaning outside them.

Secondly – he “gave his son”. Sounds good but means nothing. “gave” please spell out in absolute specific detail what you mean by gave. No metaphor no cliché. Just exactly and simply what you mean here. Second explain why. Why does god have to give anything? He can do what he wants.
As I said, the Old Testament formed a setting in which God's actions were understood, and ould be understood. The laws were no more than very specific roads along which God wanted to walk - but not just because: they became "roadmaps for peace" (to use current language).

Not just any peace: peace with God. Evidently, it was a bumpy road: going through two major exiles and periods of slavery (Egypt and Babylon), two temple-rebuildings (Jerusalem), ending with a third period of slavery: to the world itself, and a third temple: Christ (King of the "New Jerusalem"). There has since been no no temple or king among the Jews, and Jesus is the only major religious figure not to have a grave or shrine (just like Moses, btw).

The whole of Christianity is based around how and why Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man. The quickest answer to why, is because God loves us(See the quotes below *). I really can't do it any better than how Paul tried to explain it to the early churches in his epistles. God "gave" Christ as one would "give" His life, i.e. die. Jesus work on earth was as an 'anointed', i.e. authorized by God, to forgive sin. How exactly this works is described in Colossans and Galatians:

Galatians 4
3... we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

...and inherit life from Him, because we had forfeited our own.

You've probably heard that salvation stands on two legs: faith and works. You can try to balance on either, but you can only walk if you have both. Apart, neither are very useful and they become tired very quickly ;) Sin had effectively immobilized God's work, but He incorporated redemption into His creation from the beginning. Like a lock for which only He had the key. The OT described the lock, the NT describes they key.

To the Jews were promised a "kinsman-redeemer" that would restore God's creation to its former glory here on earth. He was to be the anointed king of the Jews, the "suffering servant". "[T]he Messiah, who would crush the head of the serpent and redeem mankind from the consequence of Adam’s fall, was to be born from the line of Judah. He is the one through whom all nations receive the blessing promised to Abraham" After the Jews were freed from Babylon, they returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the second temple, and amidst the constant friction with the Romans there was a heavy messianic expectancy. The temple was restored and Jerusalem belonged to them after the Hasmonean revolt (http://jeru.huji.ac.il/ec1.htm), the scene was set for the new kingdom, but in 70AD the Romans destroyed the temple and scattered the Jews. Many blamed the Christians.

*

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Titus 3
1Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. 3At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.

4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.

1 John 4
8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Jenyar – thanks for taking the time to post a reply. It’s OK that it was long, I never mind length.

From your posts, I understand that you believe in god from Christianities perspective. I do understand where you are coming from and I do understand your analogies (or at least what you are trying to say). But I find that many Theist’s, language take on this metaphoric feel that doesn’t answer much, pointedly. And in the end seems to either make absolutely no sense or even refute its intended meaning.

Let me give an example:
”God identified with our suffering through Jesus - who suffered most innocently, so that we might have hope of surviving it. God did not plan His creation to make himself suffer, but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.”

1) God identified with our suffering through Jesus.
This implies that god can not identify with our suffering without Jesus. Which is absurd. God is “all powerful”. Identifying with our suffering is the least of what he can do. So the first part of this statement is already wrong. But I would say it is necessary to validate the next part of the statement
.
2) Jesus suffered most innocently
A) Jesus suffered: As we can see from the simplicity of the first statement - unnecessarily. There is no need for Jesus to suffer.

We can quibble over this simply by you stating that God must experience it through Jesus. You can say anything. That’s the wonderful thing about religion - there is no logic to it. Which is inherent and therefore fine for discussion. Regardless, I am trying to make a small attempt at dissection this one statement. So again let me repeat. As god is all powerful (as we both – I think – agree) identifying with human suffering is as simple as me blinking an eye, for god to do without the need for Jesus whatsoever. He created the universe for “god sake” :)

B) most innocently “most” implies there are less and more states of innocent. I would disagree. It’s either innocent or guilty. Secondly, this is god we’re talking about. Even if it is just one manifestation. Innocent or not innocent is determined by the person judging that individual. I deem Jesus guilty not innocent. Therefore the sentence should continue as … Jesus suffered, as he ought to have, … You can see what I am saying. Again it goes back to making no logical sense. We can just make it up as we go along. To be the one to define what sin is and then not commit sin and then also deem yourself therefore innocent, again seems absurd. I can simply say God created the universe – in any manifestation he is guilty of creating a universe where people suffer. It’s that simple. So its not unreasonably for me to say Jesus is guilty.

3). so that we might have hope of surviving it: First off “so” again implies there is a justification to Jesus’s suffering. Which I do not think is the case (God can do anything. The “it” in this sentence is referring to suffering. So the sentence reads ~ Jesus suffered most innocently so that we might have hope of surviving suffering. At this point I would say the statement now is referring to after death. So again ~ Jesus suffered most innocently so that we might have hope of surviving suffering after we live life (which may itself contain horrible suffering) and are now dead. This implies that Jesus dies horribly so that after we die we can then escape suffering? Lets see here. I live a life of needless suffering so that after I’m dead I don’t need to suffer? You can surely understand why I see this as absurd. God can do anything. If I have a soul he can do with it what he wants after I die. He certainly doesn’t need to kill a manifestation of himself to stop my suffering after I’ve lived a lifetime of it.

4) God did not plan His creation to make himself suffer, but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.” This next sentence is going back to the creation of the world and ultimately the universe.
A) God did not plan “God did not plan” is the most important part. Anything after it does not even need to be read. God knew what was going to happen before creating this universe. Everything is therefore “planned” by god. One even hears of “God’s plan”.
B) His creation to make himself suffer, He most certainly did plan to make himself suffer. He created the universe knowing full and well that, making himself suffer, would be one of the end results. So he did plan it, there’s no two ways about it.

5)but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.” . Where to begin?
A) He does not need to partake in our suffering to redeem us. Again, He is “all powerful” he can redeem humans anytime he feels like it - with or without suffering. He is all powerful - he can do anything. “His original creation” implies that we are not now what he planned on us becoming. Which, as we read above, is not the case. When creating this universe god choose to create it, such that man would end up just as man is. God could have created it differently and in such a way so that man had Free Will (and all the rest) and still lived in paradise. If he could not have, then he is not all powerful. As he is all powerful he must have “wanted” it the way it is. Everything is as god has planned.
B) The end part “His original creation, as He intended it to be” implies that he did not intend for us to be kicked out of paradise and be as we are. This obviously is wrong for reasons already discussed over and over. Which you agreed to in our original discussion earlier last week.

So this is how I see this statement:
”God needlessly identified with our suffering through his Jesus manifestation – and in this form himself suffered. After identifying with our suffering God decided that we may not suffer after we have lived our life and are dead (that is in the afterlife). God did plan His creation in such a way as to make himself suffer (this is for reasons we do not understand), He also partook in some suffering and after which decided he will make a better world for some people after they are dead.”

free will
We will have to agree to disagree on the free will topic. It appears that you accept as true that man has a free will because it appears apparent (and also I would think is a necessary precondition of belief) when a decision is made. To just say Puppetmaster/clockmaker fallacy - - doesn’t make it a fallacy. You have to explain the error in the logic. Regardless, I believe if a god was “all knowing”, not to mention the creator of the universe, then man would not have free will.

Incidentally, I do think people have “free-will” . . . . to some degree.

creating the universe
To you it appears to make sense that God creates a universe where people suffer. As God knew this would be the case even before creating the universe - we can therefore say suffering was part of gods original design/plan. For god to then recreate a paradise the second time seems absurd (to me). One would think that an all powerful god would just create the paradise to begin with – with no option nor possibility of there being any form of suffering at all. An “all powerful god can do this and still accomplish all that it needs/plans to accomplish.

At the very least I would say we agree that some people do live quite luxurious lives and still gain salvation. Well then everyone should live as such. Even if it meant that god had to create the entire world over and over again for each individual guiding him/her along until they reach “salvation” living the luxurious life that some humans do live – well this would be nothing for god to do – and if it can not do that then it isn’t “all powerful”. And if it can and still decides that allowing some children to undergo what some children undergo – well that’s one sick puppy. I mean if you had the ability to prevent a child from coming to harm (and this would in no way inconvenience you) – and you choose not to. Well that person is sick. Not to mention - to design the universe in such a way as to insist that these children are harmed. Well that’s even sicker.

Originally posted by Michael
Let me give an example:
1) God identified with our suffering through Jesus.
This implies that god can not identify with our suffering without Jesus. Which is absurd. God is “all powerful”. Identifying with our suffering is the least of what he can do. So the first part of this statement is already wrong. But I would say it is necessary to validate the next part of the statement.
No it doesn't - it implies Jesus was God's identification with our suffering. Remember Christians do not see Jesus as intrinsically separate from God. He was only separate for our sake - separate like we are separate from God. But in Spirit He was not separate like we are, which is why we have to accept his Spirit to become his children.

Being powerful does not mean you actually do everything possible to you, it means you can achieve whatever you decide to do.


2) Jesus suffered most innocently
A) Jesus suffered: As we can see from the simplicity of the first statement - unnecessarily. There is no need for Jesus to suffer.

We can quibble over this simply by you stating that God must experience it through Jesus. You can say anything. That’s the wonderful thing about religion - there is no logic to it. Which is inherent and therefore fine for discussion. Regardless, I am trying to make a small attempt at dissection this one statement. So again let me repeat. As god is all powerful (as we both – I think – agree) identifying with human suffering is as simple as me blinking an eye, for god to do without the need for Jesus whatsoever. He created the universe for “god sake” :)
Jesus suffered for our sake, not for His own.

Since we experience suffering because of our separation from God, it is fitting that God should associate with us at the level where we need Him most. His reached into death to save us - no place is far enough for God to reconcile with us, not even death, which is as far away from life as you get.

We needed to see God do what He intended to do, to believe. It was human injustice which made Him suffer. But more than that, Jesus also allowed us to identify with God. Through Jesus, we could see that God is not the real reason for our suffering, because He shared it - and that God could indeed save us from death. God removed our uncertainty and gave us hope, because He loves us. He could have just remained high and mighty and we would have had no hope.

To us, suffering is very real and very problematic. God knows that we need Him in a very real sense. A blink of God's eye would hardly give anybody hope that He understands.


B) most innocently “most” implies there are less and more states of innocent. I would disagree. It’s either innocent or guilty. Secondly, this is god we’re talking about. Even if it is just one manifestation. Innocent or not innocent is determined by the person judging that individual. I deem Jesus guilty not innocent. Therefore the sentence should continue as … Jesus suffered, as he ought to have, … You can see what I am saying. Again it goes back to making no logical sense. We can just make it up as we go along. To be the one to define what sin is and then not commit sin and then also deem yourself therefore innocent, again seems absurd. I can simply say God created the universe – in any manifestation he is guilty of creating a universe where people suffer. It’s that simple. So its not unreasonably for me to say Jesus is guilty.
We are all guilty of sin and born under its weight. Jesus wasn't, and yet he was punished as a common criminal. He was "more innocent" in the sense that He was completely innocent in God's eyes as well. The irony is that he was found guilty because he was really who he said he was, but people convicted him for that truth. Just like you are finding him "guilty" for creating he world. Yes He is, but only injustice condemns innocence. Injustice at its worst.

God condemned sin and injustice. He did not "define it", sin is a word for an act that God cannot commit - rebellion against God as the author of justice. But sin and injustice was completely and utterly exposed when God himself suffered because of it. Suffering was not part of God's creation, it was brought into it with a lie and believing a lie. Jesus came to "fulfill the law", i.e. to make it clear that the law wasn't what made us guilty, but sin. We don't suffer because we are being righteously punished, but because we are suffering injustice. God knew how to rectify that, and He did it on our terms. He didn't have to, but He did because it was necessary for us.


3). I live a life of needless suffering so that after I’m dead I don’t need to suffer? You can surely understand why I see this as absurd. God can do anything. If I have a soul he can do with it what he wants after I die. He certainly doesn’t need to kill a manifestation of himself to stop my suffering after I’ve lived a lifetime of it.
Your logic was fine until you started forgetting that most of us live quite a while before we die - and not all of it is suffering. It is what He wants us to do while we are alive that is so important that He used prophets before, and then sent Jesus. We are to be "the light of the world", and help people who are suffering. And not to contribute to suffering - our own or that of others. You can trace that hope all the way to heaven, but that's not the point. God "cannot" do whatever He wants with your soul if He is committed to justice. He is the final judge, and your life on earth shows who you are and what you decided to do with that gift of hope.

Nobody suffers because they have to or don't have to. In that sense it's not "needless" or has any "purpose" by itself, but is merely a condition, a consequence of many things. But in stead of suffering having no meaning, it has been made meaningful and given power. People who suffer unjustly, now have hope of justice. Remember, suffering is only one aspect of the human condition.


4) God did not plan His creation to make himself suffer, but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.” This next sentence is going back to the creation of the world and ultimately the universe.
A) God did not plan “God did not plan” is the most important part. Anything after it does not even need to be read. God knew what was going to happen before creating this universe. Everything is therefore “planned” by god. One even hears of “God’s plan”.
B) His creation to make himself suffer, He most certainly did plan to make himself suffer. He created the universe knowing full and well that, making himself suffer, would be one of the end results. So he did plan it, there’s no two ways about it.
OK. But planning something and making it happen can be two different things. The A-Team plans to rescue someone from a burning building. But then their ladder catches fire, and the make another plan. The second plan is not the cause of the first plan, but in line with it. What God did with Jesus was not much different than what He did with Adam. It was all part of the same act of creation, the end result in both cases is "life within God's kingdom", but some things became necessary to happen for the plan to succeed.

In paradise, God was with Adam. Then Adam sinned and paradise was lost. But God was with Adam and his descendents while they lived according to God's original purpose. Then more and more people fell away, until only Noah was left to suffer all their injustice. So God washed everything clean and "recreated" the same creation. In the process, the ark became their coffin, and death their salvation. And then Sodom and Gomorrah, where Lot was suffering - the same act of saving Lot from a world of injustice and lawlessness and removing the cause. Then Israel was sold into slavery and suffering in Egypt, and saved by Moses. And afterwards Jerusalem, the Holy city and the temple (representing God's kingdom and His presence) itself was taken, and Israel exiled to Babylon. And King Cyprus (a foreigner) released them to rebuild both. And then the Romans took over, Jesus came to be our ark and our death, our Moses, our King Cypres, our preservation. People are living in exile in the world, sufffering is part of where we live. But the plan is still on course.


5)but He partook in our suffering to redeem His original creation, as He intended it to be.” . Where to begin?
A) He does not need to partake in our suffering to redeem us. Again, He is “all powerful” he can redeem humans anytime he feels like it - with or without suffering. He is all powerful - he can do anything. “His original creation” implies that we are not now what he planned on us becoming. Which, as we read above, is not the case. When creating this universe god choose to create it, such that man would end up just as man is. God could have created it differently and in such a way so that man had Free Will (and all the rest) and still lived in paradise. If he could not have, then he is not all powerful. As he is all powerful he must have “wanted” it the way it is. Everything is as god has planned.
Our redemption is dependent on our relationship with God. Only He can provide it, because only He can provide life. We would have no concept of redemption if the ancient Israelites weren't given laws and sin-offerings and taught concepts such as 'holiness' that we could draw from. Even our conception of :justice" comes from the past. It existed since creation, but was only discovered/revealed as it became necessary or understood. Justice means "everyone gets what they deserve" - a murder gets punished for a murder, a thief for theft, etc. The punishment for sin (rebellion against the life-giver) is death. So the payment must be in kind, sin requires death. Justice does not depend on the nature of anything, it is "blind" - so whatever God might have created, the demands of justice would have been the same.

Remember the parable of the supreme judge? He always punished crimes fairly. and had the greatest responsibility because he was the final decision. But one day his own son stood before him accused. Justice had to be served, and he passed the sentence as it was demanded. But then he came down from the bench and declared that he himself would now bear the punishment.

Nothing prevents that son to continue doing crime, but the knowledge that because his love, his completely innocent and law-abiding father is serving his punishment should make him think twice. Love is the only bond that saved him. If he had no respect for the law or knowledge of his father's love, and he didn't recognize the court's authority, he would have had no hope. He would have lived outside law and outside forgiveness until his death sentence caught up on him.


So this is how I see this statement:
”God needlessly identified with our suffering through his Jesus manifestation – and in this form himself suffered. After identifying with our suffering God decided that we may not suffer after we have lived our life and are dead (that is in the afterlife). God did plan His creation in such a way as to make himself suffer (this is for reasons we do not understand), He also partook in some suffering and after which decided he will make a better world for some people after they are dead.”
The logic is like this: Through our belief and identification with God through his son Jesus, we become likewise, "sons of God". We inherit from Him the life God originally intended for us, and gave to us a gift. We place ourselves under His judgement for our sins, which is death, and inherit the life He gave Jesus who carried our punishment. He did not only then "decide to make a better world for some people", but through Jesus provided a way of returning to His original creation, where God can be with us and we with Him. What got us out of paradise is the only thing that can keep us from entering it again: sin.

free will
We will have to agree to disagree on the free will topic. It appears that you accept as true that man has a free will because it appears apparent (and also I would think is a necessary precondition of belief) when a decision is made. To just say Puppetmaster/clockmaker fallacy - - doesn’t make it a fallacy. You have to explain the error in the logic. Regardless, I believe if a god was “all knowing”, not to mention the creator of the universe, then man would not have free will.

Incidentally, I do think people have “free-will” . . . . to some degree.
But then don't we agree? We have free will "to some degree" - free enough to be autonomous creation, but not free enough to live outside God's creation. Our will is subjected to God, but not controlled by Him. The puppetmaster/clockmaker fallacy stems from the belief that God created a machine and just lets it run (which is false because he is maintaining his original act of creation), or that He is holding a puppet show for his own entertainment, and we are really "dead", with no free will (which is also false, because evidently, we do have free will which affects the direction of our lives).

If justice was transparent to us, we would also know precisely which acts would lead to which punishments. If hearts and intentions were transparent to us, we would also know what was lies and what was truth - the same with the future and everything else. Think for a moment: our whole concept of justice is based on "knowing" the future. We create a rule which we can predict (ideally), and then measure every future event by that rule. The only problem is that our laws themselves are subject to change and incompleteness. God's knowledge doesn't have such loopholes.

Remember when Gandalf said "a wizard is never late, but arrives exactly when he means to"? From Frodo's perspective it might seem to mean Gandalf can appear whenever he like. From Gandalf's perspective, it doesn't (unless he was making a joke). God does not act everywhere or exist everywhere by default - that's not His nature. He acts and appears where He intends to, according to His decisions and our relationship with Him.

creating the universe
To you it appears to make sense that God creates a universe where people suffer. As God knew this would be the case even before creating the universe - we can therefore say suffering was part of gods original design/plan. For god to then recreate a paradise the second time seems absurd (to me). One would think that an all powerful god would just create the paradise to begin with – with no option nor possibility of there being any form of suffering at all. An “all powerful god can do this and still accomplish all that it needs/plans to accomplish.
I wonder where you lost me. God created a universe, and suffering entered it. That's not the same as creating a universe of suffering. An imagined god would have that problem. But God is not a philosophical principle - He is life, love and many things, but He is not limited by our perception of Him. God=everything is a valid hypothesis, but not one the remains accurate under all circumstances. You have shown its weakness, and must therefore reject it.

The option or possibility for rebellion is inherent in freedom, that is part of what "living" is about: making choices and suffering consequences. The view hold that you are the result of your choices isn't called "existentialism" by accident.

But existence does not include everything it depends on. I'll explain: Being "other" means you are separate from something. There is some kind of interaction - a relationship, but you are not the "it". God is external to His creation. He created it, sustains and remains involved with it, and has a plan for it - but it exists separately from Him. "Free will" is merely one perpective on this freedom - I think "life" is probably more accurate. God created life. You have God, and you have created life, and you have an interaction. You overestimate that interaction when you include everything under God's will, and you likewise underestimate that interaction when you exclude everything from His will.

God recreated our relationship - restored it is more accurate, but it was achieved through an act of creation similar to the creation of life. Paradise is the same place, but because we approach it from a different angle it looks different. Also, we cannot exclude the possibility that God has surpassed His original creation, made it redundant so to speak, and now offers us something wholly better. If you are comfortable