Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could be an indication that god is loving but evil isn't what we think it is. Maybe god is about some tough love that we mistake for wrath.

So we're back at the "letting kids die is actually good even if we can't understand how" position?

 

[JM2C]

I'm not sure what your saying here. Are you trying to say is eternal torture instead on annihilation? That would be all to predictable of your position. I will let you tell me what it is your trying to say before I go digging through verses to contend with it.

We have the same arguments from the "Did Jesus say He was God?" thread. Revelation 20

 

[1robin]

1) Clear asked 1robin regarding his claim mentioned in 4620, “…when it says to fear the one that can destroy the soul it is because that is going to happen : ” Can you give me the reference for “fearing the one that can destroy the soul” since this specific point as it differs from early tradition. Thanks.”
1robin replied : Since I take it you are familiar with the verse what did you want exactly?”
1Robin, I wanted the reference. What book, chapter and verse are you referring to regarding “..fearing the one that can destroy the soul…because that is going to happen”?

The verse is Mathew:

27"What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. 28"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.…

But I do not see how the verse is going to determine what tradition of doctrine is earliest, or true, that is why I asked what you wanted.

1ROBIN , We are speaking of newborns, you are switching to older individuals.

The verse is Mathew:

27"What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. 28"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.…

But I do not see how the verse is going to determine what tradition of doctrine is earliest that is why I asked what you wanted.

If you ARE trying to say newborns “fake” things, then you have not told us when, you think that newborns were given the understanding to do this, nor how nor when newborns acquired the capacity by God to either obey or to rebel against God. Your theory never gets consideration because it is so inconsistent with reality.

It is not really necessary that I give examples. We would have to name a specific child for that but I am making generalizations. You need to show the argument is better for their not violating those principles than the one that they do.

For example, forum readers all have experienced newborns (I’ve examined and interacted with thousands… literally). I’ve NEVER seen a newborn FAKE anything. EVER.

What was you testing methodology? Why have we gone from those too young to be accountable, to children, to babies, and now to new borns. It is as if your position is running out of ambiguity to hide in. For some reason your ignoring the other 95% of the category actually in question where what I claim is evident and have assumed without justification the last 5% has a completely opposite nature.

HAS ANY OTHER FORUM READER SEEN A NEWBORN “FAKE” SOMETHING?

If every action a baby made was fake how would anyone know. I'm deducting from the obvious attempts to deceive of older children to babies who have the exact same natures. Know one can know but my argument is far more likely than it's opposite. By the way where is this mysterious line in age you use? Why did you draw it there? Why is it relevant?

Your claim to have seen “babies” either does not even apply to the question of newborns, or if you are claiming newborn babies “fake all kinds of conditions” then it is simply not a credible claim.

My niece one time at a very early age (don't remember exactly) noticed that when she crawled to the edge of the bed I would run to put her back on the middle. I started to notice that as soon as sat down she would make for the nearest edge and when close glare at me in expectation. She was very young and so this suggests that the same person with the same nature had always had this tendency.

Re-read SkepticThinkers point as he is correct. To be “sinful” (ful

l of sin) an infant has to be morally “aware” . That is, they must have sufficient awareness, knowledge, understanding and free will to make the choice in order to have the moral competency to make a choice to oppose God in any way. (This is not necessarily true of “transgression” or of those who are “lawless”, but it applies to the conscious choice to “sin” against moral knowledge).

This whole issue has long past run it's course. The obsession with it has long ago began to look suspicious. I will say one more time that that definition has to do with accountability not technical sinfulness. Even that has exceptions, even our own laws do not always allow ignorance as an excuse for anything. Because they do not know they are not accountable, because they either fail to meet or break objective moral law they are however technically guilty. Every possible aspect of justice is accounted for with that view. No wrong is done, no exceptions made, no innocents punished, no guilt hand waived away. Everything is exactly as it should be. Only in denying this principle to vagaries and ambiguity raise their heads.

I do not think a newborn has yet learned that God exists in order to defy him nor is oriented enough to even be able to place God above other considerations. Again, refer to Skeptics point that God MUST give all individuals (including newborns) sufficient knowledge and understanding and free will BEFORE he can punish an individual for not obeying a law they have never been given. God is unjust if God creates a being with imperfection and then punishes that individual for having the characteristic which God placed into it UNLESS God give the individual adequate ability and opportunity to change. If you think that they “take from others” in the form of “stealing”, then you will have to give us data and logic to support the claim that newborns are thieves…

That explains why they are not accountable. It does not explain how they can violate the requirement and not have failed to meet it. My view leaves no grey areas, yours introduces them in totality.

I think you are being disingenuous if you claim that you, as a newborn baby in the nursery, “hated your parents”. If you are NOT talking about newborns, but instead, are talking about older children, then it is, once again, an irrelevant point. This feels like a desperate and disingenuous speculation which is HURTING your case that newborns sin instead of helping you. What is so wrong with just telling forum members that you simply don’t know what newborn infants do that is a moral sin?

I must have said it is unknowable dozens of times, just re-read my posts. It however is not beyond reasonable deductions. It is juts plain weird than no matter what I list you just back up until the fact is buried in the unknown. Since the beings in this category do X in 95% of the examinable time frames it is an infinitely better argument to claim they do so in the other 5%. It is just bizarre to examine the issue by ignoring the 95% where answers can be found and concentrate on the 5% where they come harder. It looks exactly like a lawyer trying to get a guilty client off by a procedural technicality while ignoring the evidence.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

“prove”? Are you reading your own posts? You haven’t even gotten past the stage of theorizing that infants “sin constantly” or that they are somehow morally “depraved”.
If you have paid attention, this theory has already been pronounced dead multiple times.

So was a round earth, a heliocentric system, and flight. Yet all three defied their detractors to prove true. No one has even began to provide even an attempt at proof anything I said is even potentially wrong. The only thing done was to appeal to sympathy, emotion, and the idea that 5% of a thing that is unknown is proof that it defies what is known about the 95%. This ridiculous and desperate.

Readers, including theists, nontheists, agnostics, Christians, etc. who feel infants are not morally “depraved” are both comfortable with dismissing your theory and feel even more justified in having rejected your theory of infant depravity each time you bring it up again. The early Christian worldview that infants are innocent remains perfectly unshaken as more logical, more rational, more just and more probable than this newer theory of yours where infants are morally depraved. This is what I meant that your arguments are counterproductive.

This is an appeal to popularity and given a data size of less than ten the most desperate appeal I have ever seen. Even if true sticking the words "early" or "dismissed" before something does not make an argument. When a person no longer gives reasons but instead appeals to these things it is symptomatic of a failed position. I still have not seen a positive reason (not even a bad one) to think a bay does not sin by commission or omission. Nor given he is not held accountable has anyone even attempted a reason it is relevant.

E) REGARDING 1ROBIN AND JM2C’S THEORY THAT BABIES SIN CONSTANTLY AND THAT BABIES ARE MORALLY “DEPRAVED”.

1ROBIN claimed : “ You must show the evidence is that they are obedient instead of not.“
No. This is another example of desperate, illogical silliness. All one has to show to suggest that one is sinless is to show that one has never sinned and has not yet sinned. Newborn infants have not sinned, nor do they sin (yet). If you think for example, an infant is not sinless in the womb, then what is there about being delivered that changes that status? (or are you saying God creates a sinful product in the first place?)

That is true but that is what you have not done. You have given reasons why a child is unaccountable not why they are technically exempt from moral fact. If you started tailoring moral truth to differing levels of knowledge you would have 6 billion different moral codes. Many times the greatest evidence for an argument is the absurdity of it's reverse. My argument has no technical flaw, whether true or not everything is tidy, neat, just, and consistent. Your view would open the door to ambiguous Armageddon which would never serve as a reliable moral standard.

1ROBIN If you do not have any data or logic or reason to support this theory of yours. I think it is really, really, really dead and it is NOT a superior theory to the early Christian belief in infants as being innocent.

I have not attempted to Taylor it to overturn any age of belief. It is not a doctrinal argument but a logical one. The issue is whether a creature who whenever it can be observed is imperfect for some reasons becomes perfect when it is no longer obvious. The argument against is infinitely better than for. Even is 5,999,999,999 others did not agree it will be just as true. It is also irrelevant as they are not accountable.

Clear
σετζτωτζτζω
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I have threatened giving up on this baby off ramp. The obsession with it is unsettling and bizarre. I do not intend to debate it further unless you can make it relevant to something.

 

[viole]

From this premise I based my conclusion that: Sin is the cause of death and God allowed it/death [but not the cause of death from the premise “He causes them to die”] to serve a purpose, and that is, to show His power over sin, that people might see sin as utterly sinful [that causes death] and therefore turn to Him, but people, because of this total depravity, cannot see God over sin [that causes death].

Let me see if I understood that correctly. God is innocent. It is sin that causes death. But God decided to let death ravage to show His power over sin, but people did not noticed that power and so they insist that God brings death and not sin.

If that is that case I really suggest God improves His communication skills, for no matter what He does, it would not work or will not be understood, really.

And therefore, blame God for the death while the sin, the real culprit, that causes death got away blameless.

Again, he hates sin. But instead of personally intervening or warning any individual on earth, He indirectly hopes to make aware people by showing His "power" over sin by allowing children leukemia, Ebola, some irreversible horrible genetic diseases and a dash of tsunami, earthquakes, etc... but, at the end of the day, sin is still there alive and kicking and, probably, laughing at Him.

If I worked with such a record of planning and succeeding, I would be long fired.

God did not allow Adam to sin that causes death He prevented Adam from sinning by giving him a commandment in Genesis 2:16-17.

Of course He did it. He just forbid Adam, but He did not prevent anything. You don't seem to understand the meaning of "preventing" which is definetely not the contrary of "allowing". Does the desperation of keeipng God off the hook, changes the meaning of English words?

I am aware that everything He plans goes wrong, for some reason, but He could have easily prevented that by simply nuking the tree, instead of writing useless commands. That, is prevention. Simple.

And, by the way, by creating Adam in His image, He should have known better how Adam would act, if being in His image means more than looking like a hairless gorilla. His surprise and disappointment might indicate that He failed, again, to create something like Him.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

VIOLE [/B][/U]- Sprechen sie deutsch order eine andere sprache? Ihre English ist sehr, sehr fein. (wirklich....) Ich hatte einen freund den aus Der Schweitze kam. Nach dem er Die Schweitze discuhtiert (schoen, gutes wetter, kluges volk, etc), seit der zeit, habe ich von Der Schweitz getraumpt. Na Ja, eines tages... Jetz wohne ich en der vereingten staten unt es gibt fast keine gelegenheit deutch zu sprechen. Ihre wortschatz ist auch ausgezeitnet. Ciao

Danke schön. Ich spreche Schwedisch, Italienisch, Deutsch und Englisch. Leider ist Englisch die letzte und am schwierigstem fûr mich. Dein Deutsch ist aber ziemlich gut.

Tschüß

- viole

 

[1robin]

Yes, to many Christians. However, I found two Jewish sites that say that God does not expect perfection. The first one also talks about the Jewish view of hell being similar to the Catholic purgatory. A point that was discussed a few pages ago. [FONT=&quot]From the article: Does Judaism Believe in Heaven and Hell?[/FONT]

Since I am not Jewish I fail to see how that would be persuasive. I had a real problem with God's standards for years even after I was born again. Why is faith the commodity in question? Why is it no one can meet the standard unaided? I had real issues with this until I tried to conceive of it's opposite. If perfection is not the standard how is God, God? If it is not the line in the sand perfection provides where is the line? Is it different for each? How would I know what it was for me? How could I appraise it for another? How can I know which side of it I am on? IOW any standard other the perfection is dysfunctional and ambiguous. It wrecks almost all doctrines and violates verse after verse and makes God arbitrary and assurance impossible. I don't care what group posits it all other standards fail at every level.

Judaism does believe in Heaven and at least Sheol but if you only retain the OT alone you have half an equation that alone is useless.

The second article is called: Is Your Commitment to Judaism Strong Enough?
So, again, if "perfection" wasn't a teaching from Judaism, then where did it come from? Did the God of the Jews forget to tell them? Did he not make it clear? If you are right, then apparently not.

It comes from Christ and the apostles and is also easily deduced from reason. What you responded to was not my claim. I am unsure if you meant this for me or not. What you quoted I did not write. BTW even the Jews recorded their pitiful record on properly understanding the scriptures. I respect Jews as much or more than any other culture but they are not reliable biblical commentators in general. Most of the OT is one prophet contending with most of he population who were grossly in error. What verse in the OT allows what laws to be violated without cost?

Or, could it be that everyone has different opinions of what is true? You have one based on a certain Christian way of believing. Of course you have your verses to prove your point, but like so many Christian "doctrines" too much of it is based on a few verses taken from here and there. That's bad enough, but even NT writers have taken verses out of context and have changed or added a few words here and there to make their points.

Oh brother, the there is not 100% agreement so everything is hopeless clause. Virtually no claim is without disagreement. Not in science, law, history, nor as one would expect in the most profound subject in human history, theology? If 95% agreement on 95% of the issues within a group of billions is not enough then a plain reading of the text is. Regardless of the amount of disagreement I don't know how much more you need or could expect.

That's fallible people making these decisions? Oh, sorry, except for the NT writers, the infallible God told those fallible people exactly what to write. But, who knows, maybe you're right. Your view of Christian truth kind of makes sense. It could be exactly as you say... that we are all hopelessly lost and we need Jesus. However, because it's not there or at least not clear in Judaism, then it seems to me more likely that early Christians made a lot of this stuff up.

Your not referring to biblical authors but to laymen. The authors themselves were not perfect either but even it's critics admit the bible is at least 95% accurate. It is not them who need to be perfect but God who inspired them. Judaism killed Jesus, if any group in human history had vested interest in denying his divinity it would be the Jews. If any group would be less reliable on who he was than those who rejected him and whom he condemned in general, I have no idea who it is. You might as well be quoting answers in genesis as proof evolution is wrong. Think about what your suggesting. How would a moral code that had 6 billion different codes work. How would anyone know if they had met them? How big would a book have to be to communicate them? Why did Christ need to come and die?

And, what has been happening ever since? Christians have kept re-interpreting the NT and refining and redefining their beliefs and creating new denominations of Christianity. It has never been one "objective" God-given truth... just a lot of variations. And all based on the Bible. Each group of believers feels it in their hearts. They have "experienced" God's truth and all swear, they are the ones that have it right. But what was that one verse? A house divided cannot stand or something? I know. I know. There are verses that prove all those other churches are false churches and yours is the one and only true church.

I have been a member of 5 denominations and not a single meaningful difference existed between them. The only differences I can even remember had to do with methodology. Like music or no music, preachers who stayed with the same church for life or were required to switch,
how often communion was offered. wine or grape juice, nothing contradictory. This is not an argument. Since science contains materialists, determinists, humanists, atheists, nihilists, creationist's, partial creationist's, any every other flavor of the month so I guess there is no scientific truth after all. This is my biggest complaint against your side. You arbitrarily and without justification look at faith through one lens and everything else through another. The same ridiculous standard by which you condemn faith would destroy most human knowledge in any subject.

With 750,000 or the most profound words in human history in parables, cryptic symbology, several languages, apocalyptic styles, and covering events from 5000 years plus ago until he future the only thing unexpected would be universal agreement. It is the most scrutinized text in history and there are no neutral positions. I would hope scrutiny would be such that differences occur and that people don't just swallow what they are fed like they do with theoretical science they have no way to even evaluate. However I expect to see people from hundreds of denominations or no denomination at all in heaven whether they drank wine or grape juice.

 

[1robin]

REGARDING 1ROBIN’s THEORY THAT GOD EXPECTED PERFECTION OF MANKIND AS A MORAL STANDARD.


CG DIDYMUS said : “Yes, to many Christians. However, I found two Jewish sites that say that God does not expect perfection. The first one also talks about the Jewish view of hell being similar to the Catholic purgatory. A point that was discussed a few pages ago. [FONT=&quot]From the article: Does Judaism Believe in Heaven and Hell?”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hi [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CG DIDYMUS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] : Though 1[FONT=&quot]ROBIN [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]has injected [FONT=&quot]it into his comments[/FONT][/FONT] multiple times, This idea of Perfection[FONT=&quot] as a moral expect[FONT=&quot]ation from an imperfection being,[/FONT][/FONT] is yet another theory that 1ROBIN has never (as far as I can tell) given us support for (as yet). I did not pursue it because it was not a priority and th[FONT=&quot]ere were so many other concepts that were under controversy that it simply got bur[FONT=&quot]ied inside the mul[FONT=&quot]tiple issues.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, I agree with the Jews on this point that the early Judeo-Christians also understood, in their own traditions and beliefs, that God knew even before Adam's spirit was place[FONT=&quot]d into his body and he [FONT=&quot]was placed into the garden of eden[/FONT][/FONT], that mankind was NOT going to be perfect and in fact did not expect them to BE perfect ([FONT=&quot]that is, [FONT=&quot]he did not expect the modern version of perfection of moral "flawlessness" from mankind)[/FONT][/FONT]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If you remember the discussion regarding the fall of Lucifer and his evolution into an enemy of God, the realization that if God carried forth his program to morally educate the spirits of mankind WOULD result in terrible evils upon the earth. That is, they knew that the spirits were not going to be perfect and we[FONT=&quot]re, in fact, going to [FONT=&quot]do terrible evils upon the face of the earth[/FONT][/FONT].[/FONT]

The early christian model of repentance as a principle of moral improvement in the early christian movement is much like that described in the jewish talmud. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Clear[/FONT]

Until now I could at least allow you could possibly have been right. This one however is off the rational table. You can start by reading my response to DIDY then respond to me if you want. I know no other subject better in theology and no other subject has a conclusion this unavoidable.

 

[viole]

I like you. Gnostic atheist, Metaphysical Naturalist and you say "Ciao" at the end of your posts... Wow, what's not to like. You're the best.

Now, if I only knew what a gnostic atheist and a metaphysical naturalist was? Ah, who cares? And besides, does it really matter?

Ooh, thank you. i also like you with those nice swimming mammals

Metaphysical naturalist: holds the position that nature is a closed self contained system that covers everything that exists.

Gnostic atheist (a-supernaturalist): holds the previous position out of knowledge, not mere belief

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Met Christ without recognizing His name? How can you be certain about that? Is it faith, or evidence?

It is weird how mandates for certainty keep popping up in faith discussions but not science discussions when the opposite should be the case. I am not certain but all of what evidence available to me was consistent. The point was the idea that story illustrates not the veracity of that specific guy.

And I think you take such anecdotes too seriously.

How is that? I have never made a decision on that story in my life? I always find an example of a point helps by then I a not as finicky as others. IT doe snot even mater if it was true, it is just how the idea I mentioned may play out in reality.

Yes, and Scientology claims are even more unique. Uniqueness does not entail truth. And morality, spirituality, being born again, Holy Ghosts or whatever do not carry any truth towards a metaphysical being. Only evidence does. For what we know, He might laugh at these notions, if He existed. i would

It I snot it's uniqueness that makes it more reliable than others claims. It is it's experiential nature. My statement was pointing out it's experiential nature is unique or virtually so. Not that it's uniqueness made it true. It is the difference between theories about what is at the north pole before anyone went there and what a person who visited it would believe about it. The two are not equal claims not carry equal weight. You really missed the intent there.

Well, you have to provide evidence of that. I come from an atheistic country and therefore I know a lot of atheists. I do not know a lot of them who went down of their knees while on their death bed.

If you cannot admit that death and other emergencies is so often accompanied by theological considerations then I do not think any evidence would help. Something so common as to part of the fabric of human experience is not worth proving if denied.

And I think you are still giving priority to a belief in God rather than to the actual object of the belief. You really seem to think that believing in ANYTHING transcendent is in some ways preferable than not believing in anything transcendent at all. No matter how weird that belief is.

God Is the object of faith in Christianity. You come to faith and are baptized by God with God.

Even if atheism were bankrupt on the emotional side (need for purpose, justice, hope) I would say that Christianity is bankrupt on the intellectual side every time it feels closer to someone who believes that God has the head of an elephant rather than to a general skeptic. If that is true, then I would have an edge, for beliefs that tend to fill out our little emotional gaps and cravings have the bad habit of being false.

Even if that were true they are not equal. In no category is the intellectual equal to in importance to the eternal or spiritual. You can't remember the quadratic equation you may lose ten points on a final. You do not know God and you lose everything you ever had or could have. I can't even begin to agree with you to start with. Many intellectual giants have been compelled to study the bible for a lifetime. It is at least as intellectually valuable as anything secular. It is very weird to hear them even compared in importance. This modern cult of earthly wisdom is one vacuous enterprise.

Are you sure? My Jewish friend does not agree with you.

You actually consulted a Jewish friend on my statement? It is obvious and I never intended to imply every single Jew who ever lived agreed. Just that almost all of them believe in Yahweh and almost every Christian believes in Yahweh. You will find that consistent with almost all Jewish and Christian creeds. I can see how someone may think that the God I believe in comes with actions they do not agree with. I can't see how they could be arrogant enough to tell me what specific God I have faith in. Maybe you can ask the reason for it.

Well, the disagreements are pretty major. One has a son and is therefore a father, the other does not. Your analogy does not hold, for Asians can be white, while people who have sons and no sons at the same time cannot logically exist.

Same being two versions and one must be wrong. Ok, you can know a guy named Dave who is the same as I do. For some reason he denied having a son with you but I met him. Is it a different guy or two guys which one of our perceptions about an aspect of is inaccurate about?

You make the assumption that God is benevolent. Or it can be that He is very jealous against worshipers of the competition and by eliminating them we will reach a higher good. After all, God's ways are mysterious sometimes, aren't they?

I see a world full of his enemies. You haven't been smited into eternity yet have you, I was not killed even when I hated the concept of God, communist Russia was not consumed by the horsemen yet. He is either weak (and could not be God) or he does not execute vengeance on all his enemies. I would rather use the word morally correct then benevolent. He is also just and I could not picture a God that was rebelled against without cost. I see what maybe a complaint but no evidence of wrong here. A God who was unaffected by my worshiping a non existent God which will doom me forever would be evil. I would hope me doing so would compel him in some way.

Well, no. I was checking your information theoretical skills. Smoke is always unintelligible since it is usually a highly entropic bunch of atoms. It is the size of the puffs and the interval between them that contains the information, not the smoke. Do you have to fall into my little traps all the time?

Remember what I said of information and see how it is perfectly consistent here. It always requires intelligence prior to it existing and requires both a code and a decoder tuned to that code to be information.

They expect cloudless weather in Israel today. Therefore, it is improbable that you will meet Jesus in the clouds. I guess this gives green light for your continuation.

Continuation of what, existence in this pitiful world? It does not say (I do not think) I will meet him in Israel.

BTW. Do you really believe that there will be something like a rapture and a glorious return of Jesus? Honestly.

Yes, but I am open on the sketchy details about it. I do not think it will be in my life time but guess it will by in one or two generations. BTW the only evidence I could have against it would be that it (though similar events have0 has no occurred before but since it was not supposed to have then why would hat matter. In what way is it less fantastic than an atom blinking out of existence and appearing somewhere else, gravity waves, or your not so favorite other universes? There is no probability estimate possible for supernatural events?

 

[idav]

So we're back at the "letting kids die is actually good even if we can't understand how" position?

Cause I am not god and don't know his motives or what he thinks evil is and what a super being would think pain and suffering is. Obviously if there is an issue it matter to us not to god. How am I to judge the perspective of an entity as being evil or good?

My question would go the other way. Why should god make life unrestrained, would that be better off for anyone or thing, for whom? An unrestrained life abundant planet doesn't sound feasible either.

So what is evil? God giving life good, taking life bad? What if life is gods attempt at avoiding hell? In the scheme of things I doubt anything would be really necessarily good or bad, it always boils down to a matter of perspective and opinion whether or not we are the good guys. Gods sovereignty allows him to tell us to just suck it up, our ignorance is what keeps us in suffering, even real pain type suffering.

 

[viole]

Except for the law breaker

You mean uncivilized countries? Oh yeah, they follow rules too but the only rules they follow are their own rules.

Sure, but this is not the point. The point is that if you really want to prevent something bad from happening, you have to make the conservative assumption that people make up their own rules. If you don't...you are naive or you don't know people.

Would you put a million of dollars out in the open with a warning sign that whoever steals it will be punished? Is that prevention, for you? I assume you live in a civilized country. Would you do the same with your life savings in your civilized country?

By this standards, the garden of Eden was also uncivilized for the simple reason that the sign did not work, either. Ergo, either God was naive, or He did not know what He just created, or both.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

"I do not even know if the Trinity is true nor why it matters"? Hmmm? I don't know, but it might make a slight difference in what a person believes?

Hmmm? Jesus is God? Or, no he's just a man... a real, real good man. In fact, a perfect, sinless man. But that's impossible, because all men are sinners? Therefore, Jesus is not just a man, he must also be divine? Hmmm? He must be half God and half man? No, he must be all God and only seemed to be a man? No, he must be both all God and all man, and yet, without sin. Now where's my Bible so I can find verses that make it seem like that is what the Bible was saying all along. Oh, perfect, Adam sinned and all men inherited sin from him. Oh cool, here in Isaiah I can take this "virgin" or "young woman" story, it shouldn't make too much difference if it was a virgin or young women, both words can sort of mean the same thing... and then, I'll make this story a prophesy about a child born without a father. That way, he doesn't have the inherited sin from Adam. Hmmm, now what? Okay, God got her pregnant. So God is the kids real father, so the kid is... God's son. So the kid is like God? Or, he is God!

So how is the son and the father the same being? Oh, I know, the one God is really two in one, God the father and God the Son. Hmmm? What about Mary, the woman? Mary, mother of God? Some people might buy that, but Mary never married God. That would make God an adulterer. We can't have that. What to do, what to do? I know, she was just a surrogate. She carried God's son, but she's not the real mother. She only donated the egg. So, perfect, God the father and God the son, The Holy Bi-God. Oh no, bi? That doesn't sound right? Hmmm? What to do, what to do? I know. I'll add God the Holy Spirit. Three Gods in one, the Holy Trinity! It's virtually the same God, just different. It shouldn't really matter. Maybe later, we'll add a storm god and a fertility god. And then, who knows, maybe we'll make an evil twin god to fight against the good god.

Yeah, we can have an epic battle in heaven. And all the Earth people can join in and take sides. And the evil god can mate with human woman and make half god and half man super things, that could fly and turn invisible and do all sorts of cool evil things. Then the good god could get a kid with a sling-shot to kill this giant monster evil thing that was terrorizing the Earth. Then the bad god sends an army of flying monkeys to get him, but he escapes by using a magic ring. Hey wait, I'm getting carried away. At some point people are going to quit believing this is true and realize it was just a myth... a really elaborate story that I just made up. Yeah, I better stop now before it gets too unbelievable.

So the absolute truth is: There is one God. He has a spirit, well actually he is a spirit, but he has a special spirit, The Holy Spirit, that got Mary pregnant. She had a son that was God's son, but was also God and was with God from the beginning, even though he hadn't been born yet. But, he was there in spirit. So, in the beginning there was God, an almighty spirit, and the spirit of his yet to be born son and the Holy Spirit, all three spirits, which were all one, one spirit, yet separate. They made a bunch of spirit beings they called angels or for short, messengers. These spirit beings had nothing to do, so one of them got bored and rebelled. One of the Gods, the Father, got mad and cast this bad angel out of heaven into... nothing? No, I remember now, God created the heavens and the Earth, that way he'd have a place to cast the evil angel out to. One third of the billions of angels weren't that smart, they decided to follow the evil angel.

In the mean time, God had created Adam but forgot to create Eve. God's son, the other God, had to remind God of the original plan, the plan of salvation that they had devised before the Earth was even made. This plan needed Eve, because she was going to screw up and listen to a talking serpent and eat a forbidden fruit. Wait, wait, wait, I'm sorry, nobody's going to buy this. It's like its fantasy or Sci-fy or something. Who would ever be gullible enough to listen to a Sci-fy writer? That would be stupid.

So back to the point: is the trinity true? Who knows? And really, why would it even matter. One God, three Gods, one in three, it's all almost the same. Except, if we're going to add Gods, can we make it official and add Krishna? I like him, and it would give Jesus someone to hang out with in heaven.

1. If Christ is God I need to believe in his death to be saved.
2. If Christ is not God I need to believe in his death to be saved.

I believe he was but never found the issue worth debating to much.

3. You put a whole bunch of question marks after emphatic statements. Do you want answers. I will give a summary juts in case.

1. Jesus was either divinely empowered in a way no other man has ever been and so was never in the category on morals like the rest of us. I cannot even begin to see how this could have possibly been the case but I do not rule it out.
2. His soul and spirit were divine but his body was human. He was 100% man and 100% God. He did not sin, he is not in the category of mere men. He was perfect. I don't see how this option is not a slam dunk.

You seem to be wanting a trinity debate and I never intended to and do not find it worth it. There are many threads for that if you want that debate.

A. I can't believe you actually said "sorry no one is going to believe that" when billions literally do. That belief exploded on the scene in a nation hostile to it and an empire hostile to it and has become that most dominant faith in history even conquering the empire who set out to eradicate it without drawing a sword. Calling the most influential belief in history something no one would except is juts weird.

B. God is a being composed of three person (given the trinity). I see nothing absurd about that. You keep claiming x is absurd, y is ridiculous, and z is just off the map but fail to even hint at why. There is nothing to even argue with or consider. Thousands of things thought to be fact today are just as fantastic and at one time would seemed juts as unlikely. When Quasars exists Is turning water into wine al that remarkable?

C. Most of your post seems to be some distorted parroting of a story that occurred over thousands of years condense into a few paragraphs and loaded with spin. I can't respond to an avalanche of questions, emphatic statements, and stuff I have no idea the original or relevance of. Please list a few accurate biblical principles and the REASONS they just can't be.

 

[viole]

It is weird how mandates for certainty keep popping up in faith discussions but not science discussions when the opposite should be the case. I am not certain but all of what evidence available to me was consistent. The point was the idea that story illustrates not the veracity of that specific guy.

And what evidence was that? Do you have evidence that an ancient Greek hiding in a foxhole actually saw Christ instead of Zeus? Or evidence of something equivalent?

How is that? I have never made a decision on that story in my life? I always find an example of a point helps by then I a not as finicky as others. IT doe snot even mater if it was true, it is just how the idea I mentioned may play out in reality.

Well, then do not mention them, unless you have evidence proportional to the claim. I am a skeptic, you know? And I hear stories like that coming from from all sides of all beliefs. The only thing they have in common, is that they show human's natural quest for confirmation.

It I snot it's uniqueness that makes it more reliable than others claims. It is it's experiential nature. My statement was pointing out it's experiential nature is unique or virtually so. Not that it's uniqueness made it true. It is the difference between theories about what is at the north pole before anyone went there and what a person who visited it would believe about it. The two are not equal claims not carry equal weight. You really missed the intent there.

Everybody can say that. You can hardly imagine how difficult it is for me to convince my hindu collegue that his experiences are delusions. Maybe you can help me there, if you find a way to prove that your experiences are more real than his.

If you cannot admit that death and other emergencies is so often accompanied by theological considerations then I do not think any evidence would help. Something so common as to part of the fabric of human experience is not worth proving if denied.

I am afraid, you have no idea what atheism is. Do you really think we get on our knees when we face death? The only one i know who did that had Alzheimer.

Belief in God is so implausible to us that reverting to Him when sick, but still with intact mental faculties, is just absurd. I think you are just projecting your feelings to others.

Don't take it as an insult, but this is the equivalent of starting believing in Santa because we we are alone and nobody will give us a present at next Christmas.

God Is the object of faith in Christianity. You come to faith and are baptized by God with God.

Sure. For Christians. Not for all foxholes inhabitants.

Even if that were true they are not equal. In no category is the intellectual equal to in importance to the eternal or spiritual. You can't remember the quadratic equation you may lose ten points on a final. You do not know God and you lose everything you ever had or could have. I can't even begin to agree with you to start with. Many intellectual giants have been compelled to study the bible for a lifetime. It is at least as intellectually valuable as anything secular. It is very weird to hear them even compared in importance. This modern cult of earthly wisdom is one vacuous enterprise.

The Bible is a compilation of stories made up by men (with testicles). And if by not knowing god, i lose everything, then I am not in any worse position than the vast majority of people who ever lived on earth, including the ones who never heard of Jesus, with the possible exception of the monks of your little stories.

You actually consulted a Jewish friend on my statement? It is obvious and I never intended to imply every single Jew who ever lived agreed. Just that almost all of them believe in Yahweh and almost every Christian believes in Yahweh. You will find that consistent with almost all Jewish and Christian creeds. I can see how someone may think that the God I believe in comes with actions they do not agree with. I can't see how they could be arrogant enough to tell me what specific God I have faith in. Maybe you can ask the reason for it.

Of course. i work in a very multi cultural environment. It is common in Switzerland, which is inhabited by a very high percentage of foreigners.

It is fun and instructive to see how people consider delusional whomever does not inhabit their own bubble of delusion. Full symmetry in place, here.

Alas, my Jewish friend is smart but a bit of a cynical. he thinks it is good that Christians think they worship the same god, as long as that provides lobbying for political support. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so to speak.

Same being two versions and one must be wrong. Ok, you can know a guy named Dave who is the same as I do. For some reason he denied having a son with you but I met him. Is it a different guy or two guys which one of our perceptions about an aspect of is inaccurate about?

Yes, inaccurate, obviously. I don't see how that makes you both right. For if something as fundamental as having a son who is also God, or a third thereof, is a possible reason of easily resolvable misunderstanding what makes you so sure that you do not worship the same God of Muslims? Maybe that is a slight misunderstanding too, who knows?

I see a world full of his enemies. You haven't been smited into eternity yet have you, I was not killed even when I hated the concept of God, communist Russia was not consumed by the horsemen yet. He is either weak (and could not be God) or he does not execute vengeance on all his enemies. I would rather use the word morally correct then benevolent. He is also just and I could not picture a God that was rebelled against without cost. I see what maybe a complaint but no evidence of wrong here. A God who was unaffected by my worshiping a non existent God which will doom me forever would be evil. I would hope me doing so would compel him in some way.

I think you are complicating things beyond necessity. And the world was full of people worshipping the wrong God, for the simple reason that they never heard of the right one. I can only imagine His frustration. i have to judge them differently on account of letting Jesus on hold for so long. Lol.

Remember what I said of information and see how it is perfectly consistent here. It always requires intelligence prior to it existing and requires both a code and a decoder tuned to that code to be information.

I would say that intelligence requires information to start with. Or do you have evidence of the contrary?

Continuation of what, existence in this pitiful world? It does not say (I do not think) I will meet him in Israel.

Sure. If no vulcans in Iceland erupt in the meantime. Difficult to see Jesus with all those ashes covering the atmosphere. But how does it work? Are you going to Israel to experience this live, or will you fly without wings all the way from America to meet him there?

Yes, but I am open on the sketchy details about it. I do not think it will be in my life time but guess it will by in one or two generations. BTW the only evidence I could have against it would be that it (though similar events have0 has no occurred before but since it was not supposed to have then why would hat matter. In what way is it less fantastic than an atom blinking out of existence and appearing somewhere else, gravity waves, or your not so favorite other universes? There is no probability estimate possible for supernatural events?

Yes, the temple must be finished first, of course. And if Satan can read prophecies, he will probably destroy it before it gets finished, delaying prophecy indefinitely. Actually, he could do the contrary of anything written in Revelation to delay that, if he is smart.

No. There is no probability estimates for supernatural events. Not even zero probability, which would be vastly more probable than the occurrence of a supernatural event ( there are events with probability zero which still can happen).

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

1. If Christ is God I need to believe is his death to be saved.
2. If Christ is not God I need to believe is his death to be saved.

No and no. It isn't up to us what God "needs" to do to save any individual. Far as I can tell he would simply will it.

1. Jesus was either divinely empowered in a way no other man has ever been and so was never in the category on morals like the rest of us. I cannot even begin to see how this could have possibly been the case but I do not rule it out.

Son could be going by a different set of rules.

2. His soul and spirit were divine but his body was human. He was 100% man and 100% God. He did not sin, he is not in the category of mere men. He was perfect. I don't see how this option is not a slam dunk.

This explanation always frustrates me. There is no distinguishing this, it is 100% man-god. I see the flesh as just a temporary vessel that Christ used in the form of Jesus.

B. God is a being composed of three person (given the trinity). I see nothing absurd about that. You keep claiming x is absurd, y is ridiculous, and z is just off the map but fail to even hint at why. There is nothing to even argue with or consider. Thousands of things thought to be fact today are just as fantastic and at one time would seemed juts as unlikely. When Quasars exists Is turning water into wine al that remarkable?

With god being so powerful why does he need two other entities in order to create? Any creation of a god would necessarily be gods children, the whole god and creation are one have to do with the mechanics of the pantheist god Jesus leaned towards while acknowledging having a god the father which all will comes from.

 

[1robin]

And what evidence was that? Do you have evidence that an ancient Greek hiding in a foxhole actually saw Christ instead of Zeus? Or evidence of something equivalent?

I must have really gotten context mixed up. I had no idea the foxhole thing was behind all this. I thought it was the cosmological issue. I get you and another poster confused all the time. Well this can't get any worse at least.

Well, then do not mention them, unless you have evidence proportional to the claim. I am a skeptic, you know? And I hear stories like that coming from from all sides of all beliefs. The only thing they have in common, is that they show human's natural quest for confirmation.

I guess it can. You don't get it. I have no reason to doubt the story but the story was not intended to be evidence but to illustrate a point. By your standards analogy's, parables, and especially hypotheticals are against the law. There went most of literature. Do you think I for one second thought a story about a Hindu would convince a person who denies a book as reliable as the bible. It was not persuasion but an explanation of how that would work in reality. BTW I remember who told the story and it is one of the most universally respected scholars in history. Do you have the slightest reason to doubt Zacharias's sincerity. Except for maybe Billy Graham I know of no more universally trusted character in the last century or 10.

Everybody can say that. You can hardly imagine how difficult it is for me to convince my hindu collegue that his experiences are delusions. Maybe you can help me there, if you find a way to prove that your experiences are more real than his.

It is hard to argue with experience. That is why billions of them are convincing but thousands are only interesting. What experiences is it we are talking about. I wish I could talk to another faith who claims experience. No matter how hard I try it is always another guy who has and can't be reached. Let risk arrest and give you a hypothetical. If you go to a village of 100 and 33 of then claim to have met Joe and he is fat, 33 of them say Joe exists but ten say he is tall, ten say short, and 13 say skinny, 33 of them say no Joe can possibly exist. Would it not be the order of reliability to say.

1. Joe exists and is probably fat.
2. Joe exists and who knows exactly how fat he is.
3. 33 people have never met Joe and are making garbage up.

The worst conclusion is that no Joe exists and even worst is that Joe can't exist.

I am afraid, you have no idea what atheism is. Do you really think we get on our knees when we face death? The only one i know who did that had Alzheimer.

I have seen it happen though by that I can not make in percentage estimates. Why did faith substantially rise after 911 if tragedy does not induce it's consideration? That Alzheimer's thing sounds like a bad joke. Is it true? I take it you have never served in a war I guess.

Belief in God is so implausible to us that reverting to Him when sick, but still with intact mental faculties, is just absurd. I think you are just projecting your feelings to others.

No one I so convinced that circumstances do not shake whatever we believe in. I went on board a battle ship for the sole reason to be able to but my excuse was church service. I did this several times before gulf war one. The numbers in attendance tripled as it approached. I wish I could say I went during the war but I didn't but I bet it was standing room only.

Don't take it as an insult, but this is the equivalent of starting believing in Santa because we we are alone and nobody will give us a present at next Christmas.

I can't take meaningless as offensive. I did not say only that people start questioning I also said they in fact find something that in many cases is blatantly obvious to others. I am nothing special but for days after being born again people would constantly asked me what was different? I was so much in shock and trying to catch up I actually resented the distractions. I could not describe it and didn't like not being able to.

Sure. For Christians. Not for all foxholes inhabitants.

Which one are we discussing. Some, I would say many atheist went into a foxhole and found God and faith.

The Bible is a compilation of stories made up by men (with testicles). And if by not knowing god, i lose everything, then I am not in any worse position than the vast majority of people who ever lived on earth, including the ones who never heard of Jesus, with the possible exception of the monks of your little stories.

I hope testicles are not proof against sincerity. By the way many of the bibles most prominent characters did not have them. There are two issues to the foxhole thing. First that danger sheds light on atheism inadequacy, and two that people actually find God in addition to faith. Faith as a Pascal's wager is really irrelevant. I talking about the other two.

Of course. i work in a very multi cultural environment. It is common in Switzerland, which is inhabited by a very high percentage of foreigners.

I was not surprised you knew a Jew but that you would bother asking them about my statements. I guess it is logical just not expected.

It is fun and instructive to see how people consider delusional whomever does not inhabit their own bubble of delusion. Full symmetry in place, here.

Wouldn't you be just as guilty, is that the symmetry. I think delusion is too strong for me but mistaken many times would be accurate. I think the guy saw something but I think stating it was a space ship was mistaken.

Alas, my Jewish friend is smart but a bit of a cynical. he thinks it is good that Christians think they worship the same god, as long as that provides lobbying for political support. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so to speak.

I am for Jews. I love them. They are the most remarkable race IMO. I don't always agree with them but they are unique. I tried to even join the IDF once but I was too old.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Yes, inaccurate, obviously. I don't see how that makes you both right. For if something as fundamental as having a son who is also God, or a third thereof, is a possible reason of easily resolvable misunderstanding what makes you so sure that you do not worship the same God of Muslims? Maybe that is a slight misunderstanding too, who knows?

Some aspects of what we believe about God can be perfectly wrong and we still believe in the same being in essence. I do not even know how you could derive a Christian God except through the OT one. Without the OT my God had no existence or history prior to 1AD. Maybe we are both wrong, maybe they are, the one thing that can't be true is anyone to have sufficient justification to say I don't have faith in Yahweh. I would hate to have to make that case.

I think you are complicating things beyond necessity. And the world was full of people worshipping the wrong God, for the simple reason that they never heard of the right one. I can only imagine His frustration. i have to judge them differently on account of letting Jesus on hold for so long. Lol.

The children of MIT parents probably know the quadratic equation, those born in the arctic 100 years ago probably did not. Is the quadratic wrong or right? It is hard to show that familiarity is causal here. It exploded where it was not only unknown but resented. It is the only faith present in every nation on earth. It conquered Rome who was trying to eradicate it without firing a shot. Me verses Judaism is probably more than you want to endure. That one takes a long time and requires massive evidence. It should be that way because I think Jews were on the right path but just stopped short. It is much easier to invalidate Islam or the baha-u-lluah (ism) than something that is mostly right. They must begin with invalidating what most NT scholars regardless of faith concede about Christ. They can neither delete him from history nor find a body, until they do my faith I sunder no real threat. That at least is a start.

I would say that intelligence requires information to start with. Or do you have evidence of the contrary?

I have a whole file drawer of crap from your deep end of science that claims everything is the result of mind. I however have no reliable evidence except it can't be both ways. Either mind or information was first but like everything else mind always explains information and not the other way around.

Sure. If no vulcans in Iceland erupt in the meantime. Difficult to see Jesus with all those ashes covering the atmosphere. But how does it work? Are you going to Israel to experience this live, or will you fly without wings all the way from America to meet him there?

I have never heard nor thought about the geographical point before. Clouds and ashes prevent Christ. You throw in rain and smog and were all screwed. Why ashes? How much cover is clouds exactly and was the verse literal or only indicative of the second heaven instead of the celestial or terrestrial? Where do you get your theology anyway?

Yes, the temple must be finished first, of course. And if Satan can read prophecies, he will probably destroy it before it gets finished, delaying prophecy indefinitely. Actually, he could do the contrary of anything written in Revelation to delay that, if he is smart.

So revelation is true but God's sovereignty over Satan is not. How did you make that distinction. Let me suggest that almost all atheists strip whatever revelation they use from all relevant context and cause me a lot of typing. Revelation is one thing but my laziness will not be infringed upon.

No. There is no probability estimates for supernatural events. Not even zero probability, which would be vastly more probable than the occurrence of a supernatural event ( there are events with probability zero which still can happen).

Good gracious. Nothing with an actual probability of zero can ever occur. If it did it never had zero probability. Ho many semesters of probability did you. I had three and we never got to that conclusion. Nor is there any justification (most professional atheist scholars would be embarrassment to claim) that supernatural events have any relevant probability. You know nothing, not low, not high, not computable by any means. They are brute facts or non-existent and no one can even begin to justify they latter.

 

[1robin]

No and no. It isn't up to us what God "needs" to do to save any individual. Far as I can tell he would simply will it.

Well that was just off the radar. It was not the issue. We are discussing Christian theology not metaphysical speculation of the month. Christian doctrine affirms both and that is the relevant issue whether you agree or not. I have said before I regard guessing what God does the most irresponsible act possible and that is what you did. I will leave it there.

Son could be going by a different set of rules.

That is not the issue. This was a debate with the context of Christian doctrine it was not an explanation of it or a defense of it.

This explanation always frustrates me. There is no distinguishing this, it is 100% man-god. I see the flesh as just a temporary vessel that Christ used in the form of Jesus.

Since you seem not to be familiar with doctrine I am not surprised. God if anything is a mystery and so I would fully expect many things about him not be fully grasped by our pitiful efforts. I deduce it is true whether I can understand it or not. Must of what the same authors say has been shown true in every respect. On what grounds do I reject the parts I can't understand. If I acted like that I would never have gotten through calculus.

With god being so powerful why does he need two other entities in order to create? Any creation of a god would necessarily be gods children, the whole god and creation are one have to do with the mechanics of the pantheist god Jesus leaned towards while acknowledging having a god the father which all will comes from.

It is not a need. It is a brute fact. In what way is a creation who rejected it's creator still it's children? Regardless two meanings apply to that word. However this is not really Christian 101 time. I am trying to get out of here.

 

[CG Didymus]

Since I am not Jewish I fail to see how that would be persuasive. I had a real problem with God's standards for years even after I was born again. Why is faith the commodity in question? Why is it no one can meet the standard unaided? I had real issues with this until I tried to conceive of it's opposite. If perfection is not the standard how is God, God? If it is not the line in the sand perfection provides where is the line? Is it different for each? How would I know what it was for me? How could I appraise it for another? How can I know which side of it I am on? IOW any standard other the perfection is dysfunctional and ambiguous. It wrecks almost all doctrines and violates verse after verse and makes God arbitrary and assurance impossible. I don't care what group posits it all other standards fail at every level.

Judaism does believe in Heaven and at least Sheol but if you only retain the OT alone you have half an equation that alone is useless.

In post #4641 you said that "perfection" is the standard, so it was meant for you. My problem is: if "perfection" is a Biblical standard, I expected to find it talked about at Jewish web-sites. It wasn't. So then it's a Christian NT doctrine? And, I suppose 95% of all Christians believe this way? Isn't that one of those appeals to a lot of people believing like you, therefore it must be right?

My appeal is to consistency between what Jews believe and what Christians believe. There isn't enough for me to believe that Christianity is a continuation of what God told the Jews. I find it relevant, because that still makes God evil. He led the Hebrews, not only on a journey through the wilderness, but on a spiritual journey that was irrelevant. Why the Law? To show them that they couldn't follow it? That they could not and would not be "saved" in the true sense of the word? The way that Christians believe a person gets salvation?

You say that Jews have only "half the equation"? And then you say, "that alone is useless"? Unbelievable. If the Christians are correct, what Jews have in their Scriptures isn't half of anything. A person doesn't really need anything from the Hebrew Scriptures to be "saved". All they need is Jesus, right?

Here's something I've asked before... should a Jew, in let's say between 400 to 1500AD, have converted to Christianity or stayed a Jew? The answer should be easy, right? Jesus is the only way, right? But what was the "official" "universal" Christian church during those years? You know, the one with the Roman bishop at the head. Is that the one they should have converted to and left Judaism behind?

I wonder, if you were there back in those days, would you have believed and converted to that church? I don't think so. But that church had a direct line of successors right back to Peter and the rest of the apostles? What happened? Were they teaching the "truth" about God and Jesus and how to get saved or something else? Something else right? So, probably, the Jew was better off not converting, right?

Then we get to the Protestants. Which denomination should the Jew have converted to? Lutheran? Calvinism? Anabaptist? Methodist? Church of England? I know you must believe your church has the correct doctrines on how to get saved. But where in this line does your church fit in? Where did it come from? When did it start? Why did it break away from the other churches? Can you trace the roots of your church's beliefs all the way back to the apostles? I assume you can, but can you convince that Jew that, after all these other Christian churches went astray, why is your church the one that has the true path to God? Why is it that yours has that elusive other half of the puzzle that the Jew doesn't have.

And what is it, exactly, that you are trying to convince that Jew to do? Essentially, isn't it to quit following the first half of the Bible and follow the second half. Funny thing is, without what Christians call the "OT", the Bible isn't that big. The NT is tiny. I know, it's not size that counts. And I know it's not even important that Jesus didn't even write a word of it. It's not even important that Jews differ in so many ways to what Christians believe. It's just not that important, because... because you know what? Who really cares. In so many ways it is all irrelevant. People can believe whatever they want. As long as it makes them happy and they think that they are on the right path.

But no, Christianity is the "only way." So I guess anything that we ask is very relevant. There shouldn't be any "dumb" questions. Everything is important. We need to know the truth. And, we need to be skeptical of those that say that they have "The Truth". Like I've said many times, you might be right. But, then again, you might be wrong. So how can I be sure if you're right? And don't tell me that all I have to do is read the Bible and see for myself. I do...and that's why I disagree with you.

 

[adi2d]

Good gracious. Nothing with an actual probability of zero can ever occur. If it did it never had zero probability. Ho many semesters of probability did you. I had three and we never got to that conclusion. Nor is there any justification (most professional atheist scholars would be embarrassment to claim) that supernatural events have any relevant probability. You know nothing, not low, not high, not computable by any means. They are brute facts or non-existent and no one can even begin to justify they latter.

What is the odds of picking the right # if I ask to pick a # from 1 thru 10?