Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

Remember Wimpy:"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."Wimpy has nothing on the various shamans throughout history, down to the present day:"Pay me now and I'll get you eternal life when you die."Pretty close to the biggest scam every perpetrated on humankind. And there is no shortage of eager buyers.But just call it religion and the Consumer Protection Agency can't touch it.

Faith, you say: The words "moral law of the universe" are somewhat odd. Are you suggesting that the universe has a moral law independent of God ? Or is the moral law in fact God's moral law ?

But the god you try to market is not moral at all. The god you markets laws are very immoral.AbE:You claim that disasters and calamities are punishments from the god you try to market. Yet disasters and calamities punish indiscriminately. You try to get around that by trying to sell the "Well we are all sinners" and so we all deserve punishment, yet disasters and calamities do not punish all.I'm sorry but the god you try to market comes off as some incompetent bully.Edited by jar, : see AbE, hit wrong key.

Eh? The Bible/the poster who goes by "Faith" gives us the moral law for the universe?? I might be willing to go with some small segments of conservative American Protestant culture, but I'm not quite sold on the universe as of today. You're been peddling this to us for quite a while, Faith, but you just aren't getting any more persuasive!

If this 'evidence' you speak of depends upon subjective judgements about the character and motives of others then it isn't objective is it?To demonstate that a chairs exists or that 1+1=2 doesn't depend on character references or some analysis of whether one's motives are pure. Well I was trying to get you to consider the difference between things that are the same for everyone (objective) and things which are dependent on shared psychology, culture etc. (subjective).Do you really not think there is a difference between the demonstrable existence of a chair or a mathematical result and something like the existence of God?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

ICANT what you (or I) find subjectively convincing has no bearing on what can be objectively demonstrated.That the value of the Cosmic Microwave Background mathematically predicted by Big Bang theory exactly matches experimental result can be demonstrated to anyone. What you do with that information I guess is up to you..Anyway — We really really shouldn’t drag yet another topic down your T=0 rabbit hole. Let’s stick to gods dying and the related sub issue of objective/subjective.

Of course it's God's moral law, but I was trying to get across that it is all-pervasive and operates inexorably, with very fine-tuning too -- "the windmills of God grind exceeding fine." We are judged by the Law itself, which reflects God's moral nature, but the point is that it IS a Law, not a hit or miss thing.

Not it was you in Message 111So tell me - Where in the bible does it tell us that Christ was in agnoy as a result of being separated from God?Or is this something you have inferred somehow? (if so how?) Well if we make an estimate of the number of people that have ever lived Vs an esimate of the number of people that died as born again Christians then we should get a rough idea of what proportion of humanity are separated from 'God the father'. But surely I receive this spiritual life from Him too - Right. So why does the end of physical life equate to being separeted from God? Why are the two related?

There is no more evidence that "God" is God than there is that I have a billion dollars. But God is the one who created that "immutable" destiny. He's the one who could mutate it if he chose to. He chooses not to. Not at all. The God you preach is a thug with a gun pointed at your head. Obeying him is the easy way out. It isn't the least bit egotistical to believe that he'll carry out his threats. It's at the very least foolish to believe he won't if you obey him.Edited by ringo, : Added last sentence.

Because there is a lot more evidence that humans lie about miracles happening and make up stories, rather than actual miracles accuring and them telling the truth.If this is the only evidence you have for the proof of god (a few eye witnesses) then you have no evidence at all. You can't possibly know that. This is what you have faith in. Just because a few people claim to have seen a miracle doesn't make that evidence of a miracle. Just as 1000's of people claiming to have seen bigfoot doesn't make that evidence for bigfoot.- Oni

No it is not faith that determines the reliability or credibility of the witnesses, it is ability to judge character from their writing and what is written about them. It's a judgment call, and either you have good judgment or you don't.I don't think there have been thousands who have seen bigfoot but there are other reasons to doubt that stuff.Instead of judging the actual witnesses you apply some alien standard about what people in general supposedly do, "evidence that humans lie about miracles happening." As I said you guys destroy the evidence with your bad judgment.

FaithIf you are going to ignore what scriptures say and just reiterate your view while ignoring your own bible then we cannot get anywhere. As I said, you want your cake and to eat it too child.
See ya.Regards
DL

CoyoteThanks for that Atlas Shrugged quote.Regards
DL

It's still a matter of faith. You can no more judge their character than I can, you simply have faith that they are credible. Is that what your faith hinders on, a judgement call? You apply the same standard to questions about bigfoot. I don't think any have seen bigfoot. What reasons would that be?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

If this 'evidence' you speak of depends upon subjective judgements about the character and motives of others then it isn't objective is it?To demonstate that a chair exists or that 1+1=2 doesn't depend on character references or some analysis of whether one's motives are pure.How can you not see the difference?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.