HugATree

Then the accounts of the Israelites leaving Gods ways in OT are all lies. But ironically you pretend to understand what goes on in the minds of others.

If its impossible how did satan achieve it? or If satan never experienced gods grace and love, is that to say he never lived in heaven or was never created perfect in the beginning? I believe its you missing the point. These people believed they "felt god", but new information lead them to believe otherwise. So its true saying they never experienced gods grace, it didn't exist to begin with.

Christianity is still a religion even if the christian isn't in a organized religion.

Not really, if you're wrong there is a near infinite of other possibilities that could happen. You're using the logic if you're wrong then there is nothing, but if this powerful being(s) exist but happens not to match your criteria aren't you still technically wrong?

God with a capital is usually the Christian god, god itself can mean any of them.

Throughout the OT God killed non-believers, or gave his followers laws to. And like you pointed out Relevations does too. If you're saying the "Follow me or Die" mentality isn't forceful, then there has never been a tyrant or dictator in human history.

I don't get what you're saying. What does God have to do as far as respect and kindness is concerned?

Doesn't the story of Job kind of go against this claim? God and Satan makes a bet, now how can Satan come into Gods presence or visa versa to make this bet? The story comes from Judaism in which Satan is not the evil rebel, Christianity comes up with the logic he is but now they're stuck with teachings from judaism. Teachings which value humility, love, patience, kindness, self control, and mercy are tyrannous? I don't think I want to know what you think selfishness, lust, and hatred are. You're forgetting God comes first above all you just listed, thats tyranny, as for selfishness God does a good job at keeping his ego well fed.

The definition should've explained it. Apparently Christian morals come from the bible god. God is then a dictator. A tyrant oppresses his subjects. God does the opposite. A tyrant forces his subjects to follow him. God doesn't. Why is God a dictator or a tyrant? Doesn't Revelation basically tie up these loose ends? If someone has a plan to wipe out all those who opposes them, doesn't that still make them a dictator?

The definition should've explained it. Apparently Christian morals come from the bible god. God is then a dictator.

Explain please. Thats a rather harsh thing to say without support and if you really believe it you know nothing of Christianity. from http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/tyranny Is that a better explanation? As long as the dicator is good (and God is perfect) This is just circular reasoning. If morals are based on a dictator, then the dictator decides what is good. How can a moral dictator be anything but good?

Explain please. Thats a rather harsh thing to say without support and if you really believe it you know nothing of Christianity. from http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/tyranny Is that a better explanation?

Just out of curiosity, what is your moral standard and where did it come from? Most Atheist and Agnostic morals are based on beneficial and harmful acts, where Christian morals are nothing short of tyranny.

GOD does NOT HAVE a beginning. GOD is considered the UNMOVED MOVER. Believing in GOD is NOT faith. Yes, hes a good gap filler. Actually believing in God is faith, but you'd only know that if you knew the meaning.

The world wouldn't be better, thats a pipe dream. People would be too busy trying to convince others they're right, you could make everyone believe as you do but that would be hardly a better place. As long as people value something more higher than humanity, humanity will always come second. As for devil worshippers, is that nothing more than a dig at non-christians?

The only problem that exists is you keep claiming at one stage there was nothing. Can you prove otherwise without contradicting thermodynamic laws? The Kalem Ontological argument: 1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning (the Big Bang). 3. The universe had a cause for it's existence. I can't see this being refuted. It's been tried, but failed. The universe had a beginning, energy doesn't. There are no contradictions.

The only problem that exists is you keep claiming at one stage there was nothing.

If you think thats the only choices, then you live in a small world.

-agrees with that random guy- Wouldn't you think if God existed he would be able to get around physical laws? So can the tooth fairy, easter bunny and santa. And this is whats happening. I don't think matter has been around for eternity, and matter is being recycled by using energy, it is happening unless in your world things don't decay.

And the moral standard of a follower of God comes down to what your God tells you to do, this is why religious extremists can kill people without remose. It comes down to getting your seat in heaven.

Thats a big statement considering other cultures had a moral system like ours before the spreading of Christianity. From an non-theists view morals promote safety and happiness, rather than trying to further their Gods plan so they can keep their seat in heaven or whatever paradise. When these morals are based around a deity, anything will be moral if you believe the deity told you so, even if its at the cost of others lives or happiness.

Thats a big promise for zero evidence. Maybe in the next hundred? thousand? million? years Jesus will come :roll: I'm sure hell will suit you fine, for rejecting the Quran and Allah as the one true God. :twisted:

You know what God wants? So did a Texas woman, it was to kill her own children. I guess God supports abortion too. :lol:

Thats a good argument, I see if the mother's life was in danger then abortion might be necesary, but then that brings us back to the point that its her problem that she got pregnate :lol: Just when I thought someone couldn't utter anything more ignorant. The fact she got pregnant isn't an issue whether her life should be saved, do you think she should be punished?

I was replying to his separate claim, did you even bother to read what I wrote?