God is cruel

Do not try to avoid answering my questions please.

Do or do not, there is no try. I don't feel like answering that question, the answer is too long and would take too much effort. I'm in the last half of my eighth hour at work today and I'm kinda tired.Besides, this discussion isn't getting anywhere.Why don't you make a point....gimme something worth replying too.

(withdrawn)
This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 04-04-2006 05:10 PM

What is this mysterious factor in decision making that is not attributed to your environment or personality that you speak of when you say "you"?Edit, to AdminNWR: I think determinism is very on-topic in this discussion as it is being used as support for my OP. He refuted the validity of my support, and I am trying to defend it. Is it still considered off-topic anyway?This message has been edited by protomenace, 04-04-2006 05:51 PM

You are correct. Determinism is implicit part of the OP. My mistake.

---

That's not what I meant by " I had no reason to". Don't equivocate Watson.I didn't mean that if there's no reason to believe in anything then do. I meant that I had refuted the notion of God in my arrogant musings and decided that they didn't warrant disbelief in something greater. Which answered your question, if you still remember it.Obviously there is no comparison between Jesus Christ the saviour, and a butt monkey. If there is to you, then that speaks more about you than it does any belief system. It's just an analogy Dan, so that I could find the equivalent of some kind of penalty. You know, prison, hell. (Don't forget, it's only the atheists in this thread, that insist they are going to hell. And I find in general, that they WANT this teaching taught so that they can try and smear Christ-belief. That is very obvious to me, when I observe Brian insisting upon being guilty, for one must have a motive for such a thing). Ice cool when it comes to the hunt, because he's still stuck on the butt monkey.This message has been edited by Deerstalker, 04-05-2006 08:36 AM

There are many different bibles, with many different ways of saying it.The truth is, we don't seem to know exactly what was meant, as we no longer can translate the original language that it was written in.The fact is, that they died. So I guess if the bible is to be correct, then it reads "in the day". It is kind of silly to argue about it, but nice to discuss it. I don't know if they were immortal or not. If they weren't, they had the tree of life to eat from, to keep them alive possibly.

But if God exists, and that conversation did in fact happen between Adam and God, then the problem lies in the translation, or at least some of them. This has to be a consideration if you are truely of scientific mind. It is not clear to me what was meant.I believe in God exists, then He would not be a liar.

This is from my own mind, so take it for what is worth. I believe it to be a revelation from God.I used to have problems with all the translations, and ask why are there so many translations, and which one is the true translation?We were studying the meanings of some of the greek words in a lesson, and it occured to me how many meanings there are for the same word. Since we no longer live in those times, it is hard for us to actually know what was meant.So all the translations actually hold some validity. They are necessary. To show all that could have been meant. I think the term literalist is probably an invalid term, unless you can understand the original language the bible was written in. Otherwise your just book specific.You could be a NIV literalist, or a KJV literalist, but a true literalist doesn't exist. The next best thing would be someone that accepts all versions of the bible. So from that alone they couldn't be to set in there ways about reading it.What do you think?

Then how can I prove that God loves you?

Not attributed too? I don't know. But if you don't know what "you" are, I'm gonna have a hard time explaining it.Think about your conscience. Before you do something that is either right or wrong, your conscience tells you which one it is. You then choose to do it or not, whether or not it is right or wrong. I don't suscribe to determinism, I don't think the choice has been made for you before you assess the situation, and I think you are responsible for choice that you do end up making.What makes you think that this is not the case?

Has he provided any evidence that HE does?NOw I have evidence that leads me to believe my mother loves me, she bore me, fed me, clothed me, kept me safe.. etc. That much I know, that is evidence.As far as I am concerned I have no evidence that a God has taken this same time and effort to guard my well being.in fact you could say that my mother was protecting me all these years from 'acts of god', with out my mother, and left to fend for my self I would have surely died. I don't think God would have giuded me through life with no other human input.

I asked how you could choose to believe in something. You then said that even though you had no reason to believe in something, you chose to do so.I am now asking you to choose to believe in something else, with no reason to do so. Obviously. The butt monkey is much funnier.I notice you're having a great deal of difficulty choosing to believe in the idea, because you find it ridiculous. Interesting.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

My wife grew up in a household where table manners were well enforced. When we go to a restaurant, she sometimes makes comments about egregious violations of proper etiquete. Her comments mainly consist of admonitions of that person's parents for not "teaching their child proper conduct". (hmmm....sins of the fathers?...but I digress)Your statement about conscience appears to assume that we are somehow born with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. However, protomenace is saying that your environment is the very thing that develops your understanding of right and wrong (conscience). I think that most research supports protomenace's position.With this developed (vice inborn) sense of right and wrong, are we completely responsible for our violations of particular rules in the Bible when we were not brought up to believe that those particular rules were valid?Related to this is the idea of belief itself. If we were brought up to require evidence before accepting statements as true, are we completely responsible for our disbelief of something that has scant or no evidence to support it?In other words: God knows us and what our limitations are, yet He does not provide enough evidence of His existance to overcome those limitations for people who require more than unsupported assertions. Because our limitations do not allow us to "simply believe", God will punish us for all eternity (AOG POV). Is this version of God cruel or loving?

You can't.How can you prove that God, as you believe in him/her/it, exists? You can't. You have to take it on faith.