tyvm and I see ya dissing what I believe I will have to.......hmmmmmmmm put it in prayer.....snickersnort.....

Of course, if "He" is not omniscient, but merely a very powerful being, it would be quite easy to play several different angles to get the results that you desire, using primitive, superstitious humans as your pawns....

Who says that everybody wants to be like God? Some people don't think he exists why would they want to be like him unless they wanted to be like someone they think doesn't exist? Some think it is wrong to want to be like God. Satan wanted to be worshiped like God as God.

I say that everyone wants to be like God. I am glad you find that funny. People want to be like God because God has freedom and power. Nobody tells God what to do. Most people want freedom except those who do not want to take responsibility for themselves, and they are like children who need a mommy and a daddy to take care of them.

When people grow up spiritually they strive to be more like god. We are God. Didn't you know?

Jeannie

Why don't you and Feralcatlady please just state what you personally believe and stop your "correcting" of others for what you think that they think about what other Christians believe or think?

Neither you or Feralcatlady speak for all Christians. Unless there is some sort of hive mentality going on amongst Christians that I am not aware of.

Please stick to your own opinions and stop correcting people as if you know all the answers to what everyone else thinks or believes and we can have a much better discussion.

Jeannie



Besides if all Christians thought alike, like you imply, we could not help but know how they all thought because we have been drenched in their opinions for centuries.

Typical behavior? What is that. If your asking the question "Can I expect every Chrisitan's behavior to be like Spider's?" I would say - of course not. But what you should expect is every Christian to defend the Gospel message with the tools they have been given. If Spider's method is a little abrasive and direct - than confront him on it - but don't ask absurd question's about "typical behavior" of any religion. It's just so far below your quality of intelligence - even if it is intended as rhetoric.

No body is trying to force any Christian into believing something else or into worshiping any other but their own God. If they are right and if they know they are right then they have no need on earth to defend what they believe is the "gospel."

UNLESS

Their own belief is not iron clad enough, and they fear that they might hear or discover something that actually makes more sense.

What they fear are their own doubts about their chosen beliefs. What they fear most is that they are wrong. They feel vulnerable. That is why they defend themselves against other beliefs, that is why they defend themselves against scientific discoveries that disprove their authority.

They are unwilling be their own authority. They are afraid they could be wrong. They are afraid of looking foolish perhaps.

They themselves are not under personal attack, what they perceive is that their core belief system is under attack, within themselves. Otherwise there would be nothing to defend.

C.S. - edited for brevity...



Merely a response to indicate respect.





It is more likely that we would have the most difficult of time finding two people in total agreement - than the mountain of evidence that would support this solid Premise.



I can't help but find myself concerned with the "time limitation" problem that this creates. For time did not exist until God created it - so when then did God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit get "created", and how could the bible miss this fundamental ommission to the creation story? It makes reconciling this premise you have stated difficult to accept as a blanketly obvious conclusion.





Well, my statement was a tad broader in that I was refering to evolution (which has as a premise the impossibility of a Christian God) as part of the "method of creation" statement.



If I were to accept the premise that you have presented, I would be denying the deity of the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. So - unless they are "God" as well - what was their purpose? Or do I assume they don't exist. Which brings back the "time" quandry.



I will respond to this notion with an Esher-esk kind of question. The color "black" is actually, an impossibility. It cannot exist, by definition. Black is defined to be "the absense of color". How illogical. As a matter of fact, by it's very definition - we KNOW black cannot exist. Certainly not as a color. But can we find anyone who cannot reason out that black is recognizable? So where was black when color was created? It must "always have existed". For before color was - black had to be. And by definition - how could it have come from God? How do we reconcile this conundrum through the logic you have previously stated?




We have three different definitions offered - by three respectable contributors. If we chose to follow the logic through to a conclusion of truth by starting with your premise (as captured by previous quote) - it must follow that the premise of the other two definitions must fail the test of ending in a truthful concluson. That's what I was getting at. For if either one of them draws the same logical truth - it would render your original premise unreliable, or at best - subjective. Would it not?

Where does it say "kill" is a sin? Murder maybe... but that isn't what you said.

Jeannie;

I'm curious - what is the "Biblical Myth" to which you are refering?

i think god made humans and when humans came
they just didnt like one another which made one bad seed
and made everyone turn on each other

I thought that would be obvious.

The "myth" is that the Bible is God's word, (simply because it says it is) and that it is the ultimate truth, and that the stories in the Bible are all completely true.

There may be some truth in the Bible and there may be some interesting stories, and even some history, but like any other book, they were written and embellished by men. Even history books of today were written and embellished by men, (and usually by the side that won the war.)

The rationalization or explanation I have heard for proof that the Bible is the word of God is that the Bible is a book "inspired by God."

So? This could even be true, as something called "God" exists inside all of us and inspires all of us. Many great books in existence today, I would agree were probably inspired by what I view as the God within.

But "inspired by God" does not mean "authored by God."

A fairy tale could have been "inspired by God."
A painting could have been "inspired by God."

If you want to believe this story, that is certainly your choice.

But that implies that only these ancient authors, (and no one else,) were chosen to be the only people in all of history to be inspired to write a book,(by "God") history or otherwise, this is unrealistic.

When the books in the Bible were chosen, there was much argument as to what books would be included and what books were to be left out. It was men who decided what to put in the Bible, not God.



Jeannie

I think they were effected a lot more by Gods Death Ray.

I agree, you’re absolutely right, this is far below my quality of intelligence!

I wouldn’t normally suggest this to any sensible person. But Spider isn’t being sensible. He’s, the one who repeatedly claims to speak for all Christians. He keeps ‘correcting’ everyone else’s understanding and interpretations of scripture like as if his interpretations are the only valid Christian interpretations.

So it only makes sense to ask other Christians if Spider’s behavior is a reflection of their beliefs.

I would never ask this of any normal person. Most people aren’t so pompous as to claim to speak for everyone else. This is unique to Spider. And therefore the question is valid with respect to his claims of absolute authority.

He keeps telling me that I don’t know what “Christians” believe. What he fails to show respect for is the fact that I was born and raised as a Christian. If Christians know what they believe, and I was a Christian, then it follows that I know what Christians believe. Or at least how some Christians believe. I certainly knew how I believed, and since I was a valid Christian at the time then my beliefs were the beliefs of a Christian.

Spider’s problem is that he is an absolutist. He believes that there is only one true answer to every question, only one true interpretation for everything that is ever said, and of course as he is so vehement about, there is only one true document that contains the only true word of word. He also demands that that document must be taken literally and verbatim. And that everything in the Bible must be absolutely true verbatim.

Well, I never took that approach to the religion. To me, it was never about worshiping a book. To me, it was about trying to serve a real living God. This is the way I viewed the religion, the doctrine was only the pathway to the God, it wasn’t the God itself.

And that is how I viewed it. That is a very valid view. I would have passionately defended that view when I was an active Christian. I would have denounced Spider’s approach to Christianity even back then I can assure you that his views were not mine!

My approach to Christianity was as sincere as it could possibly be. I wanted nothing more than to be loved by God and to serve God and make God proud of me. Over a very long period of time, and after much very deep thinking I finally, realized that the doctrine is false. God can’t possibly be like that doctrine proclaims. The things in that the doctrine states simply aren’t true. Period.

Fortunately, because I had never worshiped the book in the first place, and had always believe in a real living God, I realized that rejecting the book as not being the correct picture of God was perfectly fine. It as just a bunch of incorrect misguided fables written by men who tried to make out like God is something that God is not.

Realizing that, didn’t destroy God for me because God was never a myth for me in the first place!

I was simply led to believe in the wrong doctrine is all.

I don’t think I would have ever actually chosen to believe in that particular doctrine intellectually on my own. I was born into a family, and a culture where that doctrine was being worshiped.

Now in hindsight I see that doctrine as being seriously misguided and a totally incorrect picture of God.

This has been my life’s experience. And my experience is real and just as valid as anyone else’s.

I don’t need some pompous idiot who thinks he’s God to tell me that I don’t understand a religion that was a huge part of my life.

My experience with Christianity is real and valid.

Spider just doesn’t like it because it’s a negative testimony of a doctrine that he worships.

That’s too bad. That doesn’t change the fact that my experience with that doctrine is very real and quite valid.

He’s trying to silence anyone who may have had a negative experience with the doctrine by claiming that they have no right to talk about it because they aren’t “Christians”.

But in truth I was a Christian, and in a very real sense that can never be erased from my life. So from that perspective I still am a Christian. I’m a Christian who realized that the doctrine was a fable.

Therefore my views on the Christian doctrine are every bit as valid as Spider’s.

He just doesn’t like them because they are views that recognize the doctrine as a fallacy.

Yes gone from the flesh world but they aren't dead...they are still alive in the spirit world. God doesn't commit murder as people do. Thats somethng God does with souls...takes them out of the flesh world into the spirit world. He can do that.

If God can be deceptive in this way then why didn't he just do this with Satan at the beginning. Take away "his awareness of the truth" let him believe that he is in control and then just let him sit around doing nothing away from everyone not causing harm here on earth.

Eljay:

In response to your time considerations regarding 'God' being first you had said this:



Again, a premise leads to a conclusion, it is not one.

When considering a monotheistic creator 'God', it is an absolute logical necessity for 'God' to have been first. 'God' could not have possibly been the creator of all things if anything else existed prior or simultaneously to.

Simply put, if anything else existed at the same time or before, then this 'God' would be a creation and not the creator, not a 'God' at all, but a manifestation of something greater.

I must completely disagree here on your claim that 'God' is responsible for the creation of time...

A creator 'God' would have to have, and will continue to have, existed completely independant of any concept of time.

'God' being everything that was prior to any other realized existance would have no need for any measure of time and space. If one is all, then there can be no individual measure of distinction between 'God' and 'God'.

One finger cannot point at itself.





Eljay, it does not deny the existance of either by presupposing the prior existance of 'God'. It denies any seperate distinction prior to mankind as a creation.



Regarding the notion of 'black'...

Black is the absence of color. Therefore, 'black' does exist without color. Black is not a color. However, 'black' would have no distinction should color not exist. I am afraid I do not recognize the conundrum here.





A false premise cannot lead to a true conclusion.

The only premise I have proposed is that 'God' was first. All else must follow, should this premise be true.

Enjoy this day Eljay...

For shame is all I have to say on your last statement......God is the only one....He is, was and always will be.....and God made it very clear do not worship ANYONE other then him......

For Shame? Like I tell everyone who tries to hang guilt trips.. that don't fly with me. (Christianity is great for using guilt to control the masses.)

We are all part of the body of God. You just don't realize it yet. God is not something outside ourselves and God is not someone up there or over there or out there. You separate yourself from God.

I "worship" God in my own way with gratitude that I am alive. God lives in and through me and you. That is my belief. I do not accept your postulates or silly guilt trips. Sorry.

Jeannie

Amen.

This is a huge problem with Christianity. It’s totally inconsistent and makes absolutely no sense at all.

I think people would really be surprised to know that there was a time when I used to “defend the Biblical picture of God’ with just as much passion as Spider. Of course, I didn’t take his fundamentalist verbatim approach. I was even willing to accept that that most of the stories were parables and not meant to be taken as scientifically or historically correct.

Yet even allowing for this vague abstraction I was at a lost to defend this God’s animosity toward men. And his dramatic and unexplained change in personality between the Old and New testaments, and then the reversion back to the vengeful God again in revelations.

I finally gave up and realized that the picture can’t be a picture of a real entity. Even if that entity exists it most certainly wouldn’t be all-wise, or all-loving, it would be seriously mentally ill.

The thing that saved me was the fact that I could recognize that what I was actually talking about here was not a God at all. What we are really talking about is a misguided mythology made up by men. One you get past that barrier and realize that you aren’t rejecting God but rather you are rejecting a grossly absurd distortion of God, then you can finally walk away from the book and give a sigh of relief with the realization that it never had anything to do with God in the first place.

I’ll defend God any day of the week (which is silly anyway like as if God needs a mortal man to defend her)

But I won’t support an ancient mythology that actually distorts God into something that is genuinely demented and basically pronounces that decent loving acts in life are filthy and to be avoided. That’s utterly absurd. It’s a sick mythology. And I’ll never change my mind about that. It’s impossible to defend it without ultimately confessing that this supposedly all-wise all-powerful God depicted it in genuinely has no control over anything and doesn’t demonstrate the slightest bit of wisdom.

But that flies in the face of what the God is supposedly to be like.

Toss in on top of that the fact that this God is supposed to be unchanging yet Jesus basically had the exact opposite persona of the God of Abraham.

It’s impossible to defend the overall postulates of the Bible. This is why I rejected it. If I can’t even defend it to others why should I believe in myself. It’s an absurd distorted picture that is grossly self-inconsistent.

And I wouldn’t even bother talking about it anymore. Then only reason I bother is to defend against the accusations of those who have fallen for it and are trying to lay the same guilt trip on others claiming that it’s the only true word of God and that anyone who disbelieves it is rejecting God and siding with demonic forces. That’s the absurd notion that I am ultimately denouncing here.

It’s not the true word of God. It’s a demented sick mythology made up by men. And I only say this in opposition to those who proselytize it. They are attempting to lay unnecessary guilt trips on other people!

If you want to believe the religion fine.

Just don’t tell other people that they are rejecting God and that their religions and beliefs represent demonic worship. That is the arrogance of this mythological religion! If it wasn’t for this proselytizing crap we could all just ignore the people who believe in it. It’s the IN_YOUR_FACE proselytizing of it that makes people frustrated with those who believe in it.