Why Does the Biblical God Not Want People To Make an Informed Decision?

[Enoughie]

How much further back do you intend to move the goal posts?

No. You are not understanding what I have said nor does appear you intend to. What you are trying to do is jusify your thooughts of irrationality by ignoring my explanation to your question.
I told you why those laws were in place. you didn't lke the answer so you made it say, in your head, what you wanted it to say so you could excuse your inability to understand.

I asked a simple question, but you misconstrued the question to mean something else, and did not address what I asked.

So let's try this again:

The Bible says: don't have homosexual relations. (this applies to people who live today, not just 3500 years ago)

Now, the question is, how can you or I make an informed decision about this demand?

There's absolutely no data that shows homosexuality per se to be harmful in any way, or that homosexuality has any other effects. So how does the Bible expect people to make an informed decision on this issue? Simply to believe, with no evidence, that because the Bible says so we must accept it? That is by definition making an uninformed decision.

Whatever was the justification 3500 years ago is clearly not applicable today. So how does the biblical god expect us to make an informed decision about this issue?

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Rakhel]

How many tickets have you for this merry-go-round? Cuz you are tiring me. I answer your question and you don't like the answer.
Not my problem that you can't understand something so simple.


I answered your question. Answer mine.



ADD: it is also not my fault that you have a problem thinking for yourself.

 

[Enoughie]

This thread is a typical thread posted by atheist. One thing very apparent is that atheist are not shy in pointing out how illogical they think theist are, especially Christian theist. My experience is that when you question the premises of their thinking, however, they fall apart at the seams.

I am going to answer this thread by challenging the basic premises of its ifalse and dishonest assertions.

Let us begin by looking at the title:Why Does the Biblical God Not Want People To Make an Informed Decision? This is a false assumption not supported by the Bible.

So far all you give is empty rhetoric. How about actually addressing the issue. I present to you the same question I present to Rakhel:

The Bible says: don't have homosexual relations.

Now, the question is, how can I make an informed decision about this demand?

If you say that my claim (about the biblical god not wanting people to make an informed decision) is false, please prove me wrong and show how the biblical god allows us to make an informed decision on this law.

Beta did a good job pointing out that the Bible does want us to question and reason with God. The OP defiantly does not know what the Bible teaches about reasoning with God. God in the Bible does want people to make informed decisions. It is unfair for the OP to assert this about the Bible.God in the Bible is defined as dabar(Hebrew,OT) and logos (Greek, NT). A study of these terms will settle the question of how God values reasoning.

OK, let's settle the issue. Please show us how the Bible allows us to make an informed decision about homosexuality.

(there are many other issues that the bible doesn't let us to make an informed decision on, but we can start with this simple one)

If you can't answer this question, then all you wrote above is empty and meaningless rhetoric. You need to support your claim with evidence.

This statement is clearly B.S. in the generic sense of the terms. Many Christians know well that neither the OT & NT do not support an eternal hell fire for sinners.

No hell in the N.T.? How about this:
"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15)

I am such a theist and I know the issue is debatable. The point being, the doctrine of determinism vs. freewill has nothing to do with the threat of hell in the Bible. It is not an important fabrication in theology and the OP only says this because he does not know theist theology. He simply wants to distort Christian theology so he can attack it.

So you're saying that free will is not an important concept in the N.T.? Is there no significance to the fact that we can supposedly choose to follow the bible instead of being sinful?

The above is really a stupid statement. Nowhere in the Bible is it said that we must accept the Bible by blind faith. It is not psychological warfare but what this thread does is psychological warfare. The theological acrobatics are being used by the atheist on this thread. That there is absolutely nothing to support the claims of the New Testament is seriously stupid. As to faith in the Bible, the Bible says faith is a substance and evidence. There is no such thing as blind faith. The OP illustrates he does not know anything about the subject he criticizes.

More empty rhetoric. The bible doesn't have to explicitly say that it doesn't want us to make informed decisions, all it has to do is not provide any means for us to make informed decisions about its claims. I gave you an example above about homosexuality. Please prove me wrong. Demonstrate how the bible allows us to make an informed decision about homosexuality. If you can't do that, then all you're doing is substituting empty rhetoric for real evidence.

Out of ignorance the OP's take on the above verse is that it is a cover up. This is so obviously incorrect. What the verse is saying is that true reasoning recognizes the truth in the Gospel. How the OP explains this verse is ridiculous.

Since the premises of the OP are rubbish, lies, and deliberatively dishonest, we should reject totally his summary hypotheses above as a vicious attack on a religion. This thread is a violation of forum rules.

Beautiful. You can't provide answers so instead you resort to false accusations and personal attacks.

Not only that, but you also want the thread to go disappear. Now that is just plain dishonesty.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Enoughie]

Ok. Let's see if you believe what you say about questioning the foundation of belief or are you just blowing smoke? It may shock you to discover that most of the Bible was natural philosophy (theology) before it was recorded as revealed theology. Your little quote about natural philosophy is more typical of the Bible than your personal philosophy.

You clearly have no idea what natural philosophy is. Natural philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with theology. Natural philosophy is a term that precedes natural science, and science clearly has very little to do with theology.

How do you justify being an atheist?

Ah! Great question! There's only one problem with it. You're assuming that I'm an atheist!

But I never claimed to be an atheist. In fact, I'm agnostic. So your question doesn't apply to me.

You have "no" evidence that there is not a God. Is that not blind faith?

Again. This is irrelevant to me.

Christians offer thousands of evidence that there is a God to support their foundation of belief.

Really? I'd like to see some of this evidence. Since I never claimed that god doesn't exist, I don't have to disprove it. But since you brought up the subject, please show us some of this "thousands of evidence" as you claim.

Just give us two or three evidences that there is no God.

Well, again, I don't have to give you evidence for something I don't believe in.

Prove you can't fly.

How do you reason from nothing that there is something? How do you do that? Just rationally explain creation to us if you are so intelligent?I just want to know how you know all the things you say you know.

Again, I never claimed anything about the existence of God. The argument was about the Biblical God. So if anyone has to prove evidence, it would be you. Please provide evidence that if there is a god who created the universe, that the biblical god is in fact that god.

As you said: "Ok. Cough it up! We are ready!"

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[waitasec]

the Jack *** why the OP defines God, you would think it was an impossible task to define the simplest part of God.

this is where you are mistaken....
where has he defined god? if you read the doubting thomas story, what does jesus say?
john 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
the OP is being skeptical with good reason
why do you take issue with that?

Yes, you are twisting the definition of God. You have yet to address dabar. Why not?

because it's an ambiguous word

what is the definition of the word?
dabar=word...so can you define it?

first we have to define what it is...but there's no way you can, can you?
so why even try?

 

[Enoughie]

Tell you what...
Let's change the question a bit.
The "biblical god" says do not have sex with animals.
Have you made an informed decision as to whether or not you should have sex with an animal?
Did you base this decision based on personal experience? OR did you base this decision based on someone telling you "EWWW that's nasty!"

Well, first I have no interest of having sex with animals, so in this case I can make the decision without having to investigate this issue at all.

Now, if I were actually interested in having sex with animals I could investigate the issue and make an informed decision.

You don't always have to use empirical evidence to make informed decisions. Just like you don't have to bang your head against each and every solid object in the world to know that you can't pass through solid objects. You can use reason.

So back to the question you asked: I derived four core values from nature - freedom, equality, honesty, and generosity. In other words, I can demonstrate how these values come from nature, so acting in accord with these values is an informed decision I make.

A question I can ask is: "is it possible for me to have sex with an animal and at the same time act in accord with the values of freedom, equality, honesty, and generosity?"

The answer is that I cannot. I cannot be in a position of equality with an animal if I force myself on it, or if I take advantage over it. Unless the animal is "intelligent" enough to consent to sex (like dolphins are, for example), I cannot do it.

So if the biblical god made a law that you cannot have sex with animals, that's an example of a law that a person can make an informed decision about, and that decision would agree with the law (except for the specific cases where it would go against the law, like in the case of dolphins).

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Rakhel]

Enoughie
The same thought process you applied to making the decision to not have sex with animals is the same thought process you would make in deciding whether to have homosexual sex.
Therefore, you have made an informed decision.

 

[Enoughie]

How many tickets have you for this merry-go-round? Cuz you are tiring me. I answer your question and you don't like the answer.
Not my problem that you can't understand something so simple.

I answered your question. Answer mine.

ADD: it is also not my fault that you have a problem thinking for yourself.

OK. Now I answered your question fully, but you still haven't answered mine (even though you claim you have).

So let's try this one more time:

The Bible says: don't have homosexual relations. (this applies to people who live today, not just 3500 years ago)

Now, the question is, how can you or I make an informed decision about this demand?

There's absolutely no data that shows homosexuality per se to be harmful in any way, or that homosexuality has any other effects. So how does the Bible expect people to make an informed decision on this issue? Simply to believe, with no evidence, that because the Bible says so we must accept it? That is by definition making an uninformed decision.

Whatever was the justification 3500 years ago is clearly not applicable today. So how does the biblical god expect us to make an informed decision about this issue?

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Enoughie]

Enoughie
The same thought process you applied to making the decision to not have sex with animals is the same thought process you would make in deciding whether to have homosexual sex.
Therefore, you have made an informed decision.

The idea of an "informed decision" is that if the biblical god claims X, and you investigate the claim and find evidence in support of X, then the biblical god allows you to make an informed decision (for example in the case of bestiality, as I explained here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312279-post66.html)

But if the biblical god claims X, and you investigate the claim and find no evidence in support of X, then the biblical god does not allow you to make an informed decision.

If the biblical god says: "don't have homosexual sex," and you investigate it and find no evidence that homosexual sex is harmful in any way, then you must conclude that either [a] biblical god is not allowing you to make an informed decision, or the biblical god is wrong. Which of these do you prefer?

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Debunker]

So far all you give is empty rhetoric. How about actually addressing the issue. I present to you the same question I present to Rakhel:

The Bible says: don't have homosexual relations.

Now, the question is, how can I make an informed decision about this demand?

If you say that my claim (about the biblical god not wanting people to make an informed decision) is false, please prove me wrong and show how the biblical god allows us to make an informed decision on this law.


OK, let's settle the issue. Please show us how the Bible allows us to make an informed decision about homosexuality.

(there are many other issues that the bible doesn't let us to make an informed decision on, but we can start with this simple one)

If you can't answer this question, then all you wrote above is empty and meaningless rhetoric. You need to support your claim with evidence.


No hell in the N.T.? How about this:
"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15)

So you're saying that free will is not an important concept in the N.T.? Is there no significance to the fact that we can supposedly choose to follow the bible instead of being sinful?

More empty rhetoric. The bible doesn't have to explicitly say that it doesn't want us to make informed decisions, all it has to do is not provide any means for us to make informed decisions about its claims. I gave you an example above about homosexuality. Please prove me wrong. Demonstrate how the bible allows us to make an informed decision about homosexuality. If you can't do that, then all you're doing is substituting empty rhetoric for real evidence.


Beautiful. You can't provide answers so instead you resort to false accusations and personal attacks.

Not only that, but you also want the thread to go disappear. Now that is just plain dishonesty.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

Enoughie
Stop your whining and kicking. Both Rakhel and I answered your question once and you did not respond. Its late but ck. our responses and respond to these. Anything to stop your crying.

If you say that my claim (about the biblical god not wanting people to make an informed decision) is false, please prove me wrong and show how the biblical god allows us to make an informed decision on this law.

We answered this question too. If you do not care enough to read your own thread, do not expect us to bring you up to date. Man, you exhaust the logical process.

If you can't answer this question, then all you wrote above is empty and meaningless rhetoric. You need to support your claim with evidence.

How do you conclude this assertion. We ripped the premises of your relifious and societal foundation apart and you have been and still are silent in defense of your weak syllogisms. When are you going to defend your thread? It is your thread, is it not?

No hell in the N.T.? How about this:
"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15)

You are not a trained Bible scholar and are not capable of understanding a debate of such a nature. If you are interested enough, I suggest you check the 7h. Day Adventist take on hell. They present a very simple explanation of hell that you might be able to comprehend. These people can be heard on their tv broadcast on 3ABN. If you really want an honest answer, tune in there but I doubt that is what you are after. I see no honesty in your question or your very sarcastic thread.

So you're saying that free will is not an important concept in the N.T.? Is there no significance to the fact that we can supposedly choose to follow the bible instead of being sinful?

They teach college courses on this subject. It would take the complete threa to respond sufficiently to this evasive question. Besides, what you ask is off topic. Now that the thread is exposed for what it is, you want to change the topic of your thread. Good tactic though but it will not work with Rakhe and me.

More empty rhetoric. The bible doesn't have to explicitly say that it doesn't want us to make informed decisions, all it has to do is not provide any means for us to make informed decisions about its claims. I gave you an example above about homosexuality. Please prove me wrong. Demonstrate how the bible allows us to make an informed decision about homosexuality. If you can't do that, then all you're doing is substituting empty rhetoric for real evidence.

Beautiful. You can't provide answers so instead you resort to false accusations and personal attacks.
Not only that, but you also want the thread to go disappear. Now that is just plain dishonesty.

Finally, you come to the end of your whining with more whining. You have not done a good job defending your thread. You can still save it, but you must get busy addressing the real issues. You say we are dishonest! Here is your chance to back that up. You go for it brother!

 

[Enoughie]

This was the question of the OP
this was the OPs reasonings in an attempt to discredit G-d.

Once told that G-d says nothing about not making informed decisions, it went to questioning the foundations of religion. Once it was pointed out that the OP author was still questioning the church and not G-d, it changed to "why does G-d not allow you to decide to have homosexual sex?"

The question was not altered in any way. Merely clarified with a specific example. There are many issues on which the biblical god doesn't allow us to make informed decisions. From things we may encounter in daily life (ex. homosexuality) to things that are important for life itself (ex. "salvation").

I gave the example of homosexuality because it is easier to address then, say, the claim in the N.T. for eternal life in heaven. Yet, I didn't get an answer to the simpler question. Which strengthens my assertion that the biblical god doesn't want us to make an informed decision about life.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Enoughie]

Enoughie
Stop your whining and kicking. Both Rakhel and I answered your question once and you did not respond. Its late but ck. our responses and respond to these. Anything to stop your crying.


We answered this question too. If you do not care enough to read your own thread, do not expect us to bring you up to date. Man, you exhaust the logical process.

How do you conclude this assertion. We ripped the premises of your relifious and societal foundation apart and you have been and still are silent in defense of your weak syllogisms. When are you going to defend your thread? It is your thread, is it not?

You claim that my question was answered but in fact it was not. That's an interesting tactic you got there. I read this thread a few times but I still don't see an answer to my question anywhere. I'm not going to repost the same question for the 4th time. So please kindly point me to the post where this question was answered: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312192-post61.html

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Debunker]

You clearly have no idea what natural philosophy is. Natural philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with theology. Natural philosophy is a term that precedes natural science, and science clearly has very little to do with theology.

Ah! Great question! There's only one problem with it. You're assuming that I'm an atheist!

But I never claimed to be an atheist. In fact, I'm agnostic. So your question doesn't apply to me.

Again. This is irrelevant to me.

Really? I'd like to see some of this evidence. Since I never claimed that god doesn't exist, I don't have to disprove it. But since you brought up the subject, please show us some of this "thousands of evidence" as you claim.

Well, again, I don't have to give you evidence for something I don't believe in.

Prove you can't fly.

Again, I never claimed anything about the existence of God. The argume was about the Biblical God. So if anyone has to prove evidence, it would be you. Please provide evidence that if there is a god who created the universe, that the biblical god is in fact that god.

As you said: "Ok. Cough it up! We are ready!"

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

You clearly have no idea what natural philosophy is. Natural philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with theology. Natural philosophy is a term that precedes natural science, and science clearly has very little to do with theology.

Nothing is that clear. I do know what natural philosophy is. Natural theology is a branch of philosophy and it does not depend on revealed theology. Natural theology depends on philosophy, my friend. You do not know anything about theology and very little about philosophy.You prove it here. So, defend your thread or be silent.

Ah! Great question! There's only one problem with it. You're assuming that I'm an atheist!

But I never claimed to be an atheist. In fact, I'm agnostic. So your question doesn't apply to me.

I did not question whether you were an atheist. However, with your attack on God of the Bible, I assumed you were an atheist. But what I did do was attack the premises of your thread; therefore, I did not screw up and my criticisms still stand. You do the same logic of an atheist so there you are,

As you said: "Ok. Cough it up! We are ready!"

Ok. I can do that and I already did. Not being a theologian or skilled in natural philosophy, you would not know what I am about to say, so please pay attention, because we did address this very issue in this thread and you missed the subject. We pointed out that dabar was the God of the Bible and you do reject the God of the Bible as you say. But dabar was the God of the universe before any part of the Bible was writen. So you do reject the God of the universe. He is also the God of reasoning so all natural philosophy depends on dabar the God of the Bible.

Therefor, you are responsible and accountable for all the atheistic statements in this thread. No body will respect your credibility if you do not man up and defend your premises that have been addressed. Theist time and again have defended their God and you have said that you are tired of hearing it. You have refuted much of our evidence. This is your thread and it is your turn to provide the evidence that God does not exist or even that the God of the Bible does not exist.

So again, I say, cough it up and stop trying to back off your own thread.

 

[waitasec]

Ok. I can do that and I already did. Not being a theologian or skilled in natural philosophy, you would not know what I am about to say, so please pay attention, because we did address this very issue in this thread and you missed the subject. We pointed out that dabar was the God of the Bible and you do reject the God of the Bible as you say. But dabar was the God of the universe before any part of the Bible was writen. So you do reject the God of the universe.. He is also the God of reasoning so all natural philosophy depends on dabar the God of the Bible.

Therefor, you are responsible and accountable for all the atheistic statements in this thread. No body will respect your credibility if you do not man up and defend your premises that have been addressed. Theist time and again have defended their God and you have said that you are tired of hearing it. You have refuted much of our evidence. This is your thread and it is your turn to provide the evidence that God does not exist or even that the God of the Bible does not exist.

So again, I say, cough it up and stop trying to back off your own thread.

wow...the hoops one jumps through :areyoucra
i find it very telling that you know so much and with such conviction...and how do you know this, because the convoluted and ambiguous bible tells you so? an ancient text written at a time when the understanding of the world, in the mirco sense and the cosmic sense, was not understood in the capacity it is understood today?

why would you want to put a label on the unknowable?
how bout this,
when looking through a peep hole, do you assume that whatever it is you see is small enough to fit into your limited capacity of understanding?

 

[JustWondering]

A common argument for the utter lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God is that if the Biblical God were to reveal himself to us we would not have a choice of whether to believe in him or not. In other words, if the Biblical God were to reveal himself to us we would not have "free will" (and free will is an important fabrication in theology, that without it the Biblical God could not send us to hell).

Adam and Eve knew god and conversed with him on a regular basis. They still screwed up. Judas knew christ and saw him perform miracles but he still betrayed Jesus. From biblical stories it seems that one still has free will and is fully cabable of exercising it while KNOWING god.

 

[JustWondering]

The God of Nature
If a loving God exists, he would not rely on our credulity. A loving God would want us to examine the facts about the world, and make informed decisions about our life. Instead of subverting our senses and reason, a loving God would want us to use all our senses to discover Truths about life. The better we understand the Laws that govern nature, the more informed we become, and the better we can live our life.

If a loving god existed the world wouldn't be full of nasty things like famine, disease, and natural disasters. If there is a god I would wager he/she/it is a saddist or is indifferent.

 

[JustWondering]

Let me remind all you atheist that this thread is that of the atheist. We theist, not just me, have exposed your true agenda which is hidden in the weak premises of this thread. You painfully don't want to defend your premises but the onus is on you to do so.

Your going to have to explain this to me because I have no idea what your talking about.

I explained well the concept of foundations a few post back and thus far you have ignored to justify your weak premises. You continually point away from your very weak premises and try to debate very small issues trying to avoid the real issues of a very destructive issues of the evils of atheism.

If someone made an amazing claim about something (such as seeing bigfoot for example) would you not need some evidence before believing such claims? Why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept that unbelievers require more than your word to except your amazing claims about your god?

It is not unimportant to debunk the Debunker. You have taken on the major philosophy of Western Civilization. Don't waste your time on me, Get busy and defend the culture you want to build to replace the greatest nation that has ever existed. That is your goal, is it not?

North Korea, Russia, Red China, Cuba, and several other atheist populations are depending on you to destroy the fabric and foundations of freedom and democracy so you can usher in a greater humanistic natural philosophy to bring order, justice, and above all, moral relativity to society. Your narcissistic view of world order places you so much greater than God, your words and not mine, that you somehow expect the theist to keep answering you while you destroy the fabric of a stable world. Just what is the better way of life that you offer us? Can you give us an example of this utopia that you offer in a world without God? I for one want to see and hear about this example. Just where do you lead us with you elimination of God? Believe this, the Debunker is not your problem. Your lack of ability to enlighten us is your problem. Go ahead, inform us on how to make informed decisions ,if our God does not want us to be. Inform us of your superior way of living.

If you want to view those who don't believe in your god as arrogant, narcissitic, unreasonable, and just plain bad people then I can't stop you. But let me remind you of a few little details you won't like about the greatest nation in the world. God did not free the slaves, the north did. God did not give women equal rights, the womens sufferage movement did. Some of the founding fathers had little to no use for religion. Lastly, America is not a Christian Theocracy, deal with it.

 

[McBell]

Believe this, the Debunker is not your problem.

If by this you mean yourself, then I whole heartily agree.
And as a side note, I am STILL waiting for you to actually debunk something other than your strawmen.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Your answer sir is that the OP brought up the question of foundations. I was not wandering all over the place. I was directly addressing the thread. You do agree that our world without God needs to be supplied with a humanist to take God's place, do you not? Now you directly answer the question or be quite.

(takes a few deep breaths so as not to say anything directly insulting) Your arguments are puerile, and poorly thought out, and your manner is insulting in a rather juvenile way. Bear in mind that on these forums, you don't really know who you are talking to! :areyoucra

 

[waitasec]

Your answer sir is that the OP brought up the question of foundations. I was not wandering all over the place. I was directly addressing the thread. You do agree that our world without God needs to be supplied with a humanist to take God's place, do you not? Now you directly answer the question or be quite.

i suggest you move to north korea...it seems as though your principals stem from a tyrannical dictatorship ideal...

oh yeah and before you move over there you should sell everything you have and give it to the poor...don't question this because it is after all what jesus commanded you to do....