bearofthunder

I really don't think that's true.

He already knew who would become non-Christians when he made the universe. So, yes, he is responsible for non-Christians. Not by making them non-Christians, but by merely allowing them to be part of his universe when he made it. Once again, everything goes back to the fact that since the dawn of time, god has been aware of everything that will ever happen. Therefore, he cannot be good because, as the creator of the universe, he created evil. These three things occurred the simultaneously the instant god made the universe: 1. God creates universe and everything in it. 2. God is aware of everything that will ever happen, including the future existence of non-Christians. 3. God does nothing to prevent non-Christians from coming into existence.

God caused it by creating it. He created non-Christians when he created the universe. Therefore, he caused them to go to hell. But that's not the problem. The problem is that god claims to be good, so either he is hypocritical, or our notions of heaven/hell/god are inaccurate. Your example doesn't really work because the psychic didn't create you. Nor does the psychic claim to be against bad marriages.

Well, if god turns out to be Muslim or something, we'll be in the same boat... headed for the River Styx.

I have done a lot of outside research (I hope you can tell from my previous posts about the bible and other things), and that question arose from my research. I asked it seriously, not just to be argumentative: Which religion do I choose? I never said god creates everyone at different times. In fact, in my example, I assume, like you, that everyone was created at the same time when god made the universe. Yes, Bob himself decided to become a Hindu, but there is a problem: - God knew Bob would become a Hindu when he made the universe. So, in essence, he made Bob a Hindu by allowing for his creation.

But you're not the maker of your friend, so you can't be held responsible. Let's say his mother gave birth to him with the knowledge that he will one day get drunk and die. Once again, I ask. Who is responsible? I fail to see the argument you are trying to prove. He is drunk becuase he chooses to be. You need to go back one page to see why we started this: and my example of that was: In other words, god cannot claim to be good because he is implicit in the creation of people that he knows will go to hell. Similarly, if your friend's mother was a psychic who claimed to be "against people who die from drunk driving," (this sounds absurd, but I have to modify your example because it missed the mark) then she would be hypocritical if she gave birth to her son knowing (she's a psychic) that he would one day die from drunk driving.

But you're not the maker of your friend, so you can't be held responsible. Let's say his mother gave birth to him with the knowledge that he will one day get drunk and die. Once again, I ask. Who is responsible?

I agree. The atheist has the most to lose. He has a 0/100 probability of winning, while a you have a 1/100 probability of winning, assuming there are 100 total denominations, each with varying requirements for getting into heaven. It would be wise for him to abandon his ways and follow the right denomination of the right religion. Therefore, I ask you again, which religion is the right one? God created the universe. In doing so, he created Bob and knew he would ulimately be a Hindu. In the year 2000, Bob is born. In 2070 Bob dies and goes to hell. Did Bob have free will to try and get to heaven? Who is responsible? Foreknowledge = Future.

All you have stated is that Christianity uses a different method. That still does not prove it is the correct religion. If he knows what choices I am going to make before I make them, then what free will do I have? It is impossible for god, as he is defined by living humans, to be good. He already has knowledge of who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, so the only way that he would be good is if he unconditionally accepted everyone into heaven, regardless of any requirements. Obviously, this is an unreasonable suggestion. Hence, our human definitions of god are wrong. No, a mentally challenged person has no capability to understand how the sun works. In contrast, an atheist or agnostic does have the capability to believe in Christianity. The problem is that one cannot believe in something until its internal, illogical convolutions (e.g. predestination) has been sorted out. Of course, that is not likely to happen because religion, unlike science, refuses to modify and improve itself. Why should I? That question has never been answered by any religion. I know that some religions are different from others, but I do not know which one is correct. God cannot represent goodness because he is aware and has always been aware that some people descend into hell. You cannot claim innocence for something that controlls all. In other words, god (as defined by humans) encompasses both sides of the scale, so it would be illogical to claim that he represents one side.

Here is why our many different interpretations of god are all incorrect. Assumptions held by the major religions: God is moral God is not moral. He determines entrance to heaven based on whether one believes in the correct religion. Those who perform good deeds but belong to the incorrect religion are not accepted by him. God gives us free will to turn to him or abandon him God is all-knowing. Thus, the course of our lives have already been predetermined. Those who burn in hell are destined to burn in hell, and those who ascend to heaven are destined to ascend to heaven. ------------------ Does this mean that we have an immoral god? No, but it does show that our organized religions are incorrigibly human in that - The things they differ in are fundamental to the beliefs in each one. - The things they agree on are wrong. Attempts to define god and pinpoint which religion out of all the religions on earth really had supernatural prophets and supernatural events should be left to those actually in their afterlife. One quick response: But copyrights didn't exist back when Mary and the apostles got together.

No. Theories are proof. What you are thinking of is a "hypothesis," which is what Intelligent Design is. A theory is vastly different from a hypothesis. I hope you will begin to understand someday that the scientific definition of "theory" is extremely different from the layman's definition of the term. A theory is considered proof because it has been tested continuously through real-world experiments for a long period of time, its conclusion constantly being altered to fit new findings as new experiments are held. This is why a theory is the best explanation for any characteristic of the natural world - because it can be constantly improved upon as generations after generations of scientists conduct experiments to continuously reaffirm the theory's claim. If you think making a theory is "not that hard", then I encourage you to find the funding, personnel, and facilities needed to establish one. Once again, a theory is considered proof. Also, I am sure that, just as no rational person has witnessed the Big Bang, no Christian has physically seen god, so your claim is baseless. Ok, I have mentioned this book before, but could not remember the title. Several pages later, I told you guys the title, but didn't explain much else about it. So now, I'll give you both. The book is called "The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus", and here is an excerpt from amazon.com describing what the book is about. As you can see, the writer was an atheist. He got the idea for the book from a debate with his friend over wether or not God exsited, and set out to prove him that God wasn't real. However, through his research, he found enough evidence to convine himself of God's existence. Strobel's book is not an objective proof that the supernatural events of the bible were real. You seem to have missed the fact that everyone (including Strobel and his publisher) except evangelical christians understand that "The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus" is a semi-autobiographical op-ed piece. Also not mentioned is the fact that Strobel became a christian in the early 1980's, long before he began writing the book. Most importantly, however, is that, despite the book's many interviews with proponents of literal interpretation of the Bible, it does not feature interviews with critics of this view. Not a single one. The path to a moral existence is called a "good upbringing." A child with responsible, atheist parents can assimilate a correct set of morals just as easily as a child with responsible, religious parents. However, the child taught by religious parents will have the additional burden of beliefs that interfere with aspects of life that do not have to do with ethics, such as science and sexual preference.

We're talking specifically about the "500 people" thing, which was from one of his "revelations," not from the scripture. references: And this one is interesting: Apparently, Paul will assume any belief as long as he will ultimately be rewarded by god, or what he assumes god is.

Paul specifically writes in corinthians that anything he knew about the resurrection appearances came from the scripture and "revelations" he had in his dreams, not eyewitness accounts. I said that Wikipedia is better than corinthians because Wikipedia only uses material written by the original eyewitnesses. The year that an encyclopedia was made is irrelevant as long as its sources are good, since, unlike Paul, encyclopedias do not create any information of their own.

Paul, who wrote Corinthians, learned about the resurrection through 1. "revelations" 2. the scripture This is why his words are not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia only takes into account the words of eyewitnesses, such as the original disciples. Paul was never present at any of the events he wrote about.

Wikipedia does not say anything about Jesus appearing to 500 people. Obviously, they can't list the people's names, but if what you said is true, then wikipedia would have at least said "Jesus appeared to 500 people." The only people who said they witnessed resurrection were Mary and the disciples. As I said - pretty convenient for them.

This doesn't sound like 500 people to me: The only people who claimed they couldn't find Jesus' body were Mary and the disciples, and the only people who claimed they saw Jesus after his death were Mary and the disciples. Pretty convenient for them, huh? Very nice of you to go with the two manuscripts that you prefer, versus the majority: Correct translation: "For dogs have compassed me; a company of evil doers have inclosed me; like lions at my hands and my feet. The one Christians prefer: "For dogs have compassed me; a company of evil doers have inclosed me; they dig/pierce at my hands and my feet."

Ew. You were one of those people who hung out in basements.

That thing about Hitler sounds terrible, but when we are all compared to the perfect Christ, we're all terribly stained with our sins. Yes, even Mother Theresa. That's why His grace reaches to everyone, including those we have trouble associating it with. So you are agreeing that Hitler could have, potentially, gotten into heaven despite what he did?

That's what I'm saying. He could be responsible for causing life and evolution, but Intelligent Design goes beyond that.

Meh, I don't have an explanation. I just don't like it. Not one bit. I don't want google.com to open faster than amazon.com because google paid more money to my broadband company. I want google.com to open faster because they have better equipment.

And that is exactly how religion should be viewed. It is when people go further than the origin of the big bang to say that god was involved in the development of life that they become wrong. That's an argument ad ignorantium - just because you can't observe God being involved doesn't mean that God isn't involved. It's something that cannot be proven/disproven by science, since science deals with natural phenomena - not the supernatural. I meant concepts like Intelligent Design that do deal with natural phenomena. I have no problem with the suggestion that god began the universe and has been watching over us since then.

And that is exactly how religion should be viewed. It is when people go further than the origin of the big bang to say that god was involved in the development of life that they become wrong.

Very sad news. http://[Censored for time being].com/qjmql (nytimes) Student at a disadvantaged high school in Harlem was on the team that beat all the rich and prestigious private schools in New York, but he's an illegal immigrant so they wouldn't let him on the plane to Atlanta. Now they're even trying to deport him.

Because they have things proving them wrong. Even Catholic religion has been proved wrong by it's own bible, seeing how could virgin Mary be a virgin if Jesus had brothers? Actually, it's the other way around. Prostestantism says Jesus has brothers. Catholicism says Jesus was an only child. But that's beside the point. All religions contradict within themselves and with each other, so each one's promotion of itself as the only true religion is all the more evidence that religion was merely created by humans to fullfill a human need. I cannot fathom why many people do not understand the definition of the word "theory." A theory is not a suggestion. A theory has been tested continuously through real-world experiments and goes along with a fact. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation. So, Fact = apple falls to earth Theory = theory of gravitation "But why can't you say" Fact = apple falls to earth Theory = god made it so Because "god made it so" cannot be tested in experiments, so it is not a theory. However, theory of gravitation has been tested in experiments, so it is a theory. A statement does not become a "scientific theory" merely because it uses scientific vocabulary or points out inconsistencies in its competitors. In order for something to become a scientific theory, it must offer itself as proof through multiple experiments held over time, without citing any external origins (the bible, the quran, etc). This is why evolution and the big bang are scientific theories, but intelligent design is not.

No, the odds are not 0. There are no odds because there is no heaven or hell. The fact that all religions contradict each other and each one claims to be the sole, correct one, coupled with the similarities between each religion's methods of attempting to convert non-believers, gather in groups, and forming a concensus to discriminate against certain ideals show me that religion is not truly supernatural. It is merely a human condition (similar to the human needs for companionship, success, etc). There is nothing wrong with Christianity or any other religion, but their followers have reached far beyond the sensible boundary in trying to interpret their faith. also, 1. There are plenty of transitional fossils, including the fish that can walk on land, which was recently discovered. 2. The Miller-Urey is not the only experiment on the origin of life. It was done in 1953, which was 53 years ago. Since then, there have been many other experiments that modify and correct what was wrong with the Miller-Urey hypothesis (something ID can't do), which is what real science is about.