posted 11-06-98 12:40 AM ET            

actualy. i jsut thought of it this way... i had a few 'facts'
1. devil wants ppl to do bad things
2. devil gets all the ppl who do bad things and tourchers them ...wait a sec I thought he liked bad ppl
3. devil takes everyone god dont want

posted 11-06-98 01:36 AM ET            

Eh, hmmm. To put it lightly:

Did you ever pass spelling class in second grade?

posted 11-06-98 02:39 AM ET            

I'll tell you where. It's a fallacy created by the minds of men, propagated most effectively by mass media. Hell is not the Devil's kingdom, except in some perverse sense (read Milton to figure that one out). Rather, it is a place where all are punished, Devil included.

The Devil's motivations are presumably simply to hurt God as much as possible by causing as many people as possible to fail to come to the Truth of Christ. Whether or not he wants them to help wage a second war for the throne in Heaven is a moot point. This is the fault of your third "fact", though it is not exactly crippling to your argument. The Devil doesn't take people that God "don't want." He doesn't take anybody, in truth. God wants everyone, but he can't accept sin into Heaven, it would violate His just nature.

posted 11-06-98 03:27 AM ET            

He Loves everyone (yes even the atheist)

Before Time was Time Satan was one of gods angels.....who thought he could take on god....

Hell is someplace i would not wanna be.....
The fires there burn you but never consume u
in aggony forever is not something i wanna go through

Think.. who created the world.... wanna hear my theory?

the universe created its self!! think about it!

The big bang sent Trillions of molecles off at near the speed of light.. what if 1/1000000 of those passed the treshold of time now the is something where there was nothing before...... these molecles created the universe..

But! who could have created time?

i thank u all for this lovly forum to chat about something till SMAC comes out

posted 11-06-98 05:15 AM ET            

So, Satan tried to usurp God's authority, and is therefore currently punished in Hell. Unrepentent (sp?) that he is, he takes his revenge by pilfering human souls. Except for approving of Satan's rebellion (authority should always be challenged - especially absolute authority as in God's case), this stuff is quite difficult to argue with. Of course, I think it's all complete baloney, but it's no good pointing to facts, and all logic will do is to point out the occasional contradiction.

posted 11-06-98 05:26 AM ET            

Question One.

Why would an omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient entity such as most agree god is, (especailly in Judao/Christian mythology) want anything to do with the primitive inhabitants of a planet orbiting a fairly average star out in the galactic and universal boondocks?

Question Two. (directed at those who think their religion is the only right one)

Why would the above being care how he was worshiped?

Question Three.

Why would said being care IF he was worshiped?

Heckler

posted 11-06-98 05:51 AM ET            

Okay, now to the serious bit. I am an athiest, but I'm very optimistic, beliving that everything is posible. I think that the whole thing depends on what the devil thinks. The are two options, either he's pissed off at God for banishing him to hell and he takes souls for revnege. Or he is pure evil so he like taking souls and torturing them.

Although I haven't read the whole thing, I think a lot of the things in the Bible contradict themselves. Like if God loves everyone then why are people going to Hell in the first place. I would asume that God is more powerful than Satan, so he would have the power to take everyones souls to heaven.
And if he loves eveybody so much then why Noah's flood, I know that he said he'll never do it aging (never ever), but didn't he love everyone before then?

posted 11-06-98 07:06 AM ET            

Number One seems fairly easy. In addition to the qualities you list, the God is a god of infinite Love as well. It is His Love that compels Him to care about the lives of us finite creatures.

I'm not sure that I understand what Number Two is asking, honestly, so I can't really help you. There are too many ways that that can be interpreted. I don't want to choose one and possibly choose wrongly. Perhaps you can clarify for me?

Number Three is difficult, perhaps. I suppose it's fairly easy to say that He doesn't need us, or any other creatures, to worship Him. However, given that He is worthy of worship, isn't it better for Him to be worshipped than for Him not to be?

P.S. I know that my answer to Number One appeals to God's Infinte Love. I know what someone is going to say. "How can an infinitely loving God allow people to go to Hell?" I wish to head this one off at the pass, if I can. God is not only all the other things, he is infinitely just, as well. It is not just that sinful people go to Heaven. Sin has no place there, it would violate God's very nature if it did. That's why there has to be a Hell, and it's why people must go there. There has to be a place where Sin is punished, since that is what is just. This is by no means a full and complete answer to every objection that can be raised, but I would prefer that this only serve to head off the most obvious attack, and thus lead to more thoughtful, and powerful arguments.

posted 11-06-98 07:56 AM ET            

Here is a clarification

Question 1.

God (Defined as above) why would such a being reveal himself to Mankind of all things?

Question 2.

This question was directed at everyone who says "my way of worship is the only right one and if you dont follow it you <insert form of punishment here>"

Why would God (as defined) care how we worshiped him?

Question 3.

God (again as above) why should he/she/it care if we worshiped him/her/it?

Heckler

new questions

If God does care how we worship him/her/it why havent we all been punished? To my knowledge every religion on the planet has had at least one major change in its mode of worship.

As above if God does care how we worship is such a being worthy of being defined as god?

Rebuttal

Why must God be a being of infinite love? Assigning a Human emotion to god is in my opinion not acceptable as part of a religious argument. In answer to why not I ask a second question. God by <western> definition must be Omnipotent, Present, Scient, any other attributes are not agreed on by the religions I am referring to.

Disclaimer:

posted 11-06-98 08:01 AM ET            

To start with, some things that don't make sense from my point of view:

-if god is almighty, and loves humans, why the hell doesn't he get rid of satan?
-why would an almighty being want humans to sacrifice animals for him? That's just ridiculous
-even worse: why would an almighty (and infinitely loving) being want humans to mutilate their babies (as jews do till today)?
-the idea almightiness is doesn't make much sense in the universe I live in :-)
-wouldn't an almighty being know how the mankind will develop and forsee what mistake he is making? Wouldn't he make his creation more suited for civilised life and less animal-like (we are very aggressive species, and it seems like we could be a lot more intelligent too)

From god's POV, satan's existence can be negative, neutral, or positive. It is clearly in the god's power to destroy satan, so it is unlikely he would bear his existence if he didn't like it. If it is positive (i.e. god's using satan as a tool against potential sinners), then satan, who hates god would probably try to do the most damage to god - by suiciding :-). My conclusion is that god considers satan to be of no importance... That could be used to derive very strange things about both god and satan :-), let me know if you don't like my reasoning.

Ok, so this is not very serious. A lot of the stuff I'd like to say has been said before (DCA, Mortis, Heckler and Zan Thrax).

Dushan

posted 11-06-98 08:06 AM ET            

Though I believe in God, I don't believe in Satan as I think that mankind has no need of help in performing atrocities (think Hitler, think Stalin, think Jhiad, think Crusades, think Inquisition and that is the short list.) Pleanty of evil acts (evil being defined as that which brings about more pain/suffering than happiness/enjoyment) have been performed in the name of God.

And another question (directed at the christians)

Of the above list of atrocities the crusades, and the Inquisition were performed by christians, Hitler was a christian. Did the people who commited these acts go to Heaven or Hell? Why? Where did their victims go? Why?

Heckler

posted 11-06-98 08:18 AM ET            

Concerning circumcision this was proabably instituted as a health practice as in the unsanitary world of old it was not only possible but proabable that the area under the foreskin would not be cleaned. This has been shown to cause some nasty infections after intercourse (in the woman silly.)

Heckler

posted 11-06-98 09:24 AM ET            

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg - the religion forces people to do many other dubious things, not so easily observable. I think that children's minds are being mutilated too. The way children are brought up in religious families reminds me of education in communist countries (I spent a part of my childhood in one, so I know ). I believe the child should not be tought that god exists, told to pray, go to church, etc. Its mind is not fully developed till early teens, and it can't properly reason about the information it is being fed. In fact, when I was a very young child, I was cared for by my (religious) grandparents. I used to pray, go to church and I probably believed in god without any questions (though I can't remember very much). This is not in any way 'faith', and I can't see why any god would want humans to rape their children's minds like that. I'm sure you'll disagree on that one, but my mind is open - persuade me if you think I'm wrong.

posted 11-06-98 09:44 AM ET            

Yep religious education has a lot of tie in with brainwashing both

Try to get them young. A mind with no other refferences can not tell what is right or wrong.

Keep them from ideas which contradict with those you want them to have. See above.

Make them feel like they belong. Children for the most part have a great need to feel as part of the group.

It is in my opinion a bit much.

Heckler

posted 11-06-98 05:43 PM ET            

Many of my examples use a family as an analogy. To date, this has been the best way for me to visualize and understand God.

Heckler:

1. Why would God reveal himself to mankind?

Why does a human parent reveal himself to his newborn baby? Out of love for his children. A parent nurtures a baby from birth until the child can take care of himself. The child is not aware of what the parent is at birth, but his understanding grows as he grows older. Humans could ignore their newborn children as well. Why don't we abandon our babies in the street? For the same reason that God doesn't. Love.

2. Why would the above being care how he was worshiped?

Personally, I don't think he does care. If you had ten different children, and for your birthday they each gave you 10 different gifts, would you care what they were? Personally, I would accept each gift for what it was. Worship is a gift we give God.

3. Why would said being care IF he was worshiped?

Just imagine if you had children and they ignored you. You would feel hurt. Worship is a way to "spend time" with God. I believe that worship is a way to build a relationship with God.

Mortis:

Frankly, I don't think Satan takes souls. He
makes sure that they go to hell, but then he couldn't care less what happens to them. Imagine if you were really HATED someone, you'd want to get back at them any way you could. So, you'd figure out the way that would hurt them the most, and do it. By preventing souls from joining God, Satan hurts God the most he can.

dushan:

Your questions are a little harder, but I'll try to explain my opinion on the matter.

1. if god is almighty, and loves humans, why the hell doesn't he get rid of satan?

God gave us free will. Why he did this, I'm not completely certain. He could have created a world where we were mindless robots and did the right thing ALL the time. However, we do have free will, and that allows us to become greater than robots. In order to have free will, there has to be a choice. Instead of trivial choices like apples vs. oranges, we were given good vs. evil. Eventually God will get rid of satan.

2. Why would an almighty being want humans to sacrifice animals for him? That's just ridiculous?

We don't anymore. I can't really comment on this one, since I have no idea why people originally did this.

3. Why would an almighty (and infinitely loving) being want humans to mutilate their babies (as jews do till today)?

Health reasons. Same reason for not eating pork. Don't do it, because refrigeration didn't exist, and people were getting sick as a dog off of it.

4. wouldn't an almighty being know how the mankind will develop and forsee what mistake he is making? Wouldn't he make his creation more suited for civilised life and less animal-like?

It's back to the free will argument. Yes, He could have made us perfect with perfect knowledge of good & evil. Those were the angels, and still some of them chose evil.

Heckler (again):

1. Did the people who commited these acts go to Heaven or Hell? Why? Where did their victims go? Why?

Humans can't judge others. There are many instances of people who led sinful lives and then repented at the end, and truly meant it, who were saved. For instance, the thief who died with Jesus. He realized he was a sinner, and was truly sorry. At that point in time, he grew spiritually and was forgiven. Likewise you can probably regress.
Since I'm not omniscient I have no idea. My best guess, though, is that they went straight to hell.

dushan:

Religion != brainwashing

By your same argument, anything that your parents did for you, would also be brainwashing. By your definition, life is brainwashing. If your parents feed you "Life" cereal, you would be brainwashed either for or against it. If they had you listen to Barry Manilow, and you liked it, you could claim it as brainwashing. But, if everything else they exposed you to is not brainwashing, how is exposing you to their moral & spiritual code, brainwashing?

Aga & others:

Past exorcism's, what about miracles? Take Fatima. 70,000 people across 25 miles of Portugal witnessed the miracle of the sun during World War I. The best page for that is http://www.fatimatoday.com/fatsun.html.

Whew... If you guys have any questions at all, please feel free to ask away.

Take care....

posted 11-06-98 06:52 PM ET            

>>snip<<
therefore God must be defined as existing outside out universe
>>snip<<

physics proves that leaveing ones universe or entering another will screw up the energy and theoreticly cause a kablooy(my physics tach actualy said kablooy today :P)

if god did exist in this different universe, it is more likely to by a high tech speciecs with far superior knowlge of energy

DeStrider

>>snip<<
Just imagine if you had children and they ignored you. You would feel hurt. Worship is a way to "spend time" with God. I believe that worship is a way to build a relationship with God.
>>snip<<
I have trouble fixing human concepts
on a non-human subject, it is highly probible that this god doesn't care and moved off to start another project on someother planet

posted 11-06-98 06:53 PM ET            

>>snip<<
therefore God must be defined as existing outside out universe
>>snip<<

physics proves that leaveing ones universe or entering another will screw up the energy and theoreticly cause a kablooy(my physics tach actualy said kablooy today :P)

if god did exist in this different universe, it is more likely to by a high tech speciecs with far superior knowlge of energy

DeStrider

>>snip<<
Just imagine if you had children and they ignored you. You would feel hurt. Worship is a way to "spend time" with God. I believe that worship is a way to build a relationship with God.
>>snip<<
I have trouble fixing human concepts
on a non-human subject, it is highly probible that this god doesn't care and moved off to start another project on someother planet

>>snip<<
Religion != brainwashing
>>snip<<
do I sense a programer's typeing here?

posted 11-06-98 06:56 PM ET            

typo typo...sigh
>>cut<<
if god did exist in this different universe, it is more likely to by a high tech speciecs with far superior knowlge of energy
>>cut<<<

>>paste<<
if gof fif exist in this different univiers, it is more likely that god is in fact ahigh tach species with lots better energy know how
>>paste<<

"I prefer to be defined by what I am not,
_NOT_
by what I am."
--Dcreeper

posted 11-06-98 07:22 PM ET            

For example 10000 years ago before the ice age ended the Medditiranian and the Black sea where both lakes, because the water level had droped there was a lot more land, and a huge delta north of the Black sea. Now when the Ice Age retreated the sudden rise in water level burst through the straigh of Gibralta and later into the black sea. Now you could say this could be used to prove Noah's flood. But you could also say that Noah's flood could be used to prove this.

It all depends on whether you take the top down approach or the bottom up.

posted 11-06-98 07:47 PM ET            

Since I'm not, here's something the disturbed me recently. A Christian once used a (King James) Bible to confirm his theory that men exist to glorify God.
Now that same Bible makes it pretty damned (pun intended) clear that God created man (not the other way around!)

I was wondering what sort of God makes beings to glorify himself? Does God have some unresolved issues with His confidence that he needs to create preening little toadies to back Him up?

On a non-Judeo-Christian front, if reincarnation is a fact, then how come there seems to be an ever-growing abundance of souls on this planet? We had maybe 1 billion people a hundred years ago, now we have roughly 6 billion. I know that this assumes only humans have souls. If, in fact, all animals or even all living things have souls, then is extinction of a species a "good thing" in that it allows a soul to assume human form, which is apparently the only form which ponders its own mortality?

Also, why is it Judeo-Chistian? Why never, Judeo-Islam? The followers of Mohammed, as I understand, also use significant portions of the Torah, Talmud, etc.....

posted 11-06-98 11:46 PM ET            

1) Circumcision -- 1. There is no medical evidence, aside from studies published by the US Army, that circumcision provides any medical benefit at all!!!! The US Army, in WWI, found out that men who were circumcised developed less trench fever (or crotch rot as it is more commonly called) and decided to study the effects of circumcision. I feel their studies are inherently biased, as I would if Bayer produced a study stating aspirin is a panacea. In fact, circumcision is a procedure that has risks and causes decreased sensation to the glans of the penis. This being said, I am the father of a 8 month old son. He is circumcised. Hypocritical? Sometimes I think I am, but my brother had a genetic deficit with his penis that slightly deformed it and was ridiculed in locker rooms. In the South, the vast majority of men are circumcised and I did not wish my son to be ridiculed. Even so, there are many times I wish I had not done the procedure.

2.) Hell -- I do not believe in a hell as a location. In actuality, it was not until the Jews were forced into Babylon and exposed to the Babylonian religion which had an afterlife that heaven and hell became apparent to the Jews. Before that time, all Jewish writings from that period have no statement of heaven, hell, or any afterlife.

3) The omnipotence of God -- have several crises of faith with this one, especially where the Flood comes in. If I am omnipotent and omniscient, surely I could come up with a better solution than killing all the humans, (including the innocent babies, that another forum topic discusses). In the New Testament, he does--he sends his Son. If I am omnipotent AND omniscient, I would not fix a problem one way one time and a different way the next. One solution would be better than the other, and I would know it. Secondly, God promises never to destroy the world like that again. The only time I ever say I will never do something again is when I realize I made a mistake the first time. Granted, I am giving God a lot of humna characteristics, but after all, he made us in his image. The part of the flood that is most troubling me, though, is the destruction of newborn babies.

As I said before, I am a Christian. Actually, more of a Thomas Jefferson Christian than anything. His bible began where Jesus started his teachings and ended at the cruxifixion (sp?). No OT, no resurrection and no teachings of Paul. (who I believed turned Christianity into more of a religion of laws than a religion of love, which I believe.) If anyone is interested, read Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity by Bruce Bawer. Had some very thought-provoking viewpoints.

posted 11-07-98 01:17 AM ET            

God does not send people to Hell. Let me put it this way, Heaven is being eternally with God, Hell is being eternally without Him. God loved us enough to give us free choice. (Freedom, the same thing Canada, America, and most of Europe etc... are based on. Also, the same thing that the United Nations exists to promote.) God wanted us to love Him, but he gave us the choice not to. Guess what we chose? Yeah, we chose not to love God. This all goes back to Adam and Eve eating from the forbidden tree. You may object saying "I had nothing to do with that!" True, but you have sinned (as have I, continuosly and greatly) So, we have a problem. We all have chose to reject God, we have all sinned. And as Romans 3:23 and then Romans 6:23 say, (paraphrased "Everyone has sinned, and therefore does not live up to God's expectations. We all deserve to die." And we all do EXCEPT that God loves us more than that. So, God came up with a plan (This may seem like a strange plan to us, but remind yourself that you, unlike God, are not Omnicient) Well, since we are not perfect, we need something that is to make us right with God. Therefore God sent to earth His Son Jesus who lived a perfect life for us, and whom we killed out of our own stupidity. But, this was all part of the plan, God knew we were gonna do that 'cuz we are evil. Well, Jesus died, and so we were all doomed again right? All destined to die apart from God but then... Jesus rose from the dead and conquered this death so we have can be united with God again. All we have to do, is accept this gift from Jesus. THAT IS IT. Since we are sinful and fall short of God's expectations, no work can ever reconicile ourselves to God, only the work of God through Jesus' death and resurection can do that. So accept it! Accepting it is accepting a 'golden ticket' to heaven. If you don't get a ticket though, you'll find yourself without God forever when you die. And God is love. A loveless eternity is something you don't want. But remember this throughout your life GOD LOVES YOU!!!

That's the Christian doctrine in a nutshell, and I have tons of things I would like to address because I know that they will be asked, but I'll wait 'til then.

MedIntern: I would ask you to re-examine your beliefs. Jesus' death has nothing to do with salvavation unless we needed it in the first place, and Genesis (the Old Testament) gives that account. Also, Jesus constantly quoted the OT, He must have believed it. Also, in address to Paul's epistles, have you ever read Galatians? I think that if you do read it, you will find that Paul was very aggressively opposed to law. He stresses over and over and over again that the law has nothing to do with salvation, but only the grace of Jesus Christ. Anyway, what matters is Jesus Christ, and so if arguing about it divides us, then I'm not gonna do it. Thanks all you guys/galz for answering and aasking questions.

posted 11-07-98 01:57 AM ET            

Interestingly, most people seem to be driven into religion to find some meaning in their lives; to me the idea of an omniscient / omnipotent being just makes everything pointless. God never needed to send his son to Earth, he could just change our memory so we believe it happened. Believing in God would be my final descent into nihilism: nothing is true, you can never be free, it's all just a game ruled by the ultimate puppeteer; the only possible rebellion is to tear the world down for its own sake.

posted 11-07-98 02:10 AM ET            

I LOVE BIG BROTHER

posted 11-07-98 02:24 AM ET            

In answer to the post that started this
terrible thread, no it wouldn't seem that
they are best friends, best of enemys I would say
problem is, I don't believe either exist, as I am Buddhist

*Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo*

Jack_Schitt

posted 11-07-98 02:45 AM ET            

Just want to address a few minor points:
dushan: You said religious people aren't logical. First of all, if this were true the grand majority of the people from Einstein to Aristotle would be considered illogical. Isaac Newton spent more time on religious writing than the laws of physics. There have been and are many thinkers who are also Christians. One of my favorite authors is C.S. Lewis whose "Mere Christianity" might be instructive to any of you who care to do a little reading.
I personally wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't think it coincided with reality. It is because I see it as the best explanation out there for reality, and because I've seen it personally confirmed in my life that I stick to it. While there are limits to how far our logic can take us, where logic and science are applicable, Christianity should agree.
Along those lines:
Dcreeper: about the being entering or leaving the universe, we're talking about an omnipresent GOD here who created the universe, so terms like leaving or entering are not applicable.

Some other stuff . . .
Jojo said:
Also, why is it Judeo-Chistian? Why never, Judeo-Islam? The followers of Mohammed, as I understand, also use significant portions of the Torah, Talmud, etc.....

Judeo-Christians believe the Old Testament or Torah, etc. is authoritative while Muslims believe it has been corrupted. They don't know by whom or how it was corrupted, but since it disagrees with the Koran they decided it must be flawed. There are other differences, but I haven't looked into them much.

Talon54 said:
Reincarnation. It used to be in the Bible.But in the 4th or 5th century at the council of Nicea, it was removed.

Just yesterday I read the statement produced by the council of Nicea (The Creed of Nicea)and it didn't have anything to do with reincarnation. They certainly didn't edit the Bible as you seem to imply. Your tirade was interesting, but lacking substance, just like some sermons I've heard

Heckler:
You claim Hitler was a Christian. I'm wondering where that idea came from. It's certainly possible he claimed to be a Christian (a lot of people have), but it seems unlikely that he was for obvious reasons (Jesus was a Jew; in the end people from every people, tribe, and language group are supposed to be in heaven; not to mention love your neigbor, etc.)

posted 11-07-98 03:17 AM ET            

Tom, of course God loves you! More than you can ever imagine in fact! He died for you man, and He'd do it again if He had to, but he doesn't. Salvation is already free. Just take it Tommy! I'm praying for you Tom, and you say you don't read the Bible. Well, if you find any free time, I dare you read the book of John, if not for anything else, then for the entertainment value. Love you all!!!

posted 11-07-98 07:18 AM ET            

I think it is erroneous to assume that an omnipotent,omniscient, omnipresent being does not desire to be loved by someone or something,especially if you created everything and everyone in the first place.
To not think that God desires Love from us is to project a human idea of what God is upon him.All creatures and beings need Love. Why shouldnt God also desire it.Also from Gods point of view he has the Handbook for Ultimate Happiness and Joy.If worshipping God
means you can also learn these rules, why wouldnt God want you to participate."Of course the trick is you have to believe that following what God believes in will make you happier than you are now".You also have to have an idea of what it would be like to be happier than you are now,but enough of that one.

Why arent we all being punished for worshipping incorrectly?
Ill say it again. God is not in the punishment buisness.However he is in the teaching and learning buisness.Which again is why the impersonal law of karma was set up.You get back what you give out.Again a punishing God is a human projection placed on God by those contaminated by CCJ, Criticism,Condemnation,and Judgement,further promoted by the hellfire and damnation promoters at your local church,not all of them mind you."Son you were born in sin and your going to hell if you dont believe in our doctrine.Makes you feel like getting closer to God don't it? Its a shame because it creates a great distance between man and God,
because you feel like your such a lowlife that you can never get near God.The things that you see happening to people are for the most part there energy coming back to them.
It may cause pain and suffering but it is not Gods punishment.

I really dont think god gives a hooey how you worship him as long as you meet two criteria.

1. Your not harming anybody else.
2. What your doing is actually bringing you closer to Him and helping others.In other words your not just jawin in the wind and wasting your time.That one is really my opinion.

Your right that all the worlds religions have changed their doctrine.All religeous movements lose their original divine spark and become somewhat corrupted.But all the seven major world religions are valid as far as worshipping God goes in their original form.They each outpicture a different aspect of God.I belive that if your a good Bhuddist you'll go to heaven. Or a good Hindu,whatever it is.Some one quoted on the past forum that you get to heaven in spite of your religion not because of it.

Rebuttal. Ascribing human emotion to God.

Ill ask you a question? What makes you think that Divine or Infinite Love is the same thing as a human emotion?Yuo'll have to research that for yourself.

posted 11-07-98 02:22 PM ET            

Exorcists - This has already been covered quite well, suffice to say that any good student of psychology can name you pleanty of ways for this to be explained.

Why would God reveal himself to mankind? - Though several answers have been given none have yet been able to withdraw Human attributes from God and still do so.

Larry Boy - Please bring proof of your statement, or at the very least a logical line of reasoning.

Jesus - Ok for those who care to look there is more than enough historical evidence show that Jesus was hardly perfect. No I cannot at this time bring refrences my library is currently in storage in the U.S.

Hitler - This is a valid point I simply assumed that he was a memeber of the formost religion in his lands i.e. Chritianity. However, the question still has not been fully answered and I urgently wait for some to do so.

Question
Of the above list of atrocities the crusades, and the Inquisition were performed by christians, Hitler was a christian. Did the people who commited these acts go to Heaven or Hell? Why? Where did their victims go? Why?

If some of those who claim that belief in Jesus is pancea would please answer this I would greatly appreciate it.

Heckler

I'm thinking about more questions.

posted 11-07-98 07:31 PM ET            

I'm no theologan - I'm only 13, so I don't know much about Heaven and hell, but I know the Almighty God loves you and me, infinately more than we could ever love Sid Meier, and if you don't already know Him, then I suggest you try to meet him. As I type this I am quivering with happiness, and I feel fulfilled.

'I am walking in the light of the Lord'

posted 11-07-98 08:41 PM ET            

I think that this answers several statements. God reveals Himself all over the place. The very fact that there is love is evidence of something above matter. You can twist logic around, but matter and energy cannot create something like love. Without God, the universe is like a giant calculator, everything is defined by sets of laws, and everything happens under nothing's free will. Nothing has a choice. A planet cannot decide to shift its orbit and go the other way, a star cannot decide to give off only blue light rather than white light, a tree cannot decide whether it will produce cherries or apples, and a human being cannot decide to play the game alpha centauri. It is all programmed into us by the laws of the universe. In this hypothetical universe, there is not feeling, there is no free will, there is no philosophy, there is not evolution, there is nothing worth anything. How can anyone say that they can have meaning doing what is right if there is no right? It makes no sense.

As for the history of Jesus, there were 17 secular historians who talked about him, and a multitude of Jewish historians that wrote of Him. Obviously, the Jewish historians would not want to say anything good about him as their entire belief system is based on Him not being perfect. The Romans (most of the secular historians) also did not want Christianity to spread and considered it a cult and a pestilence. HOWEVER, there were many things recorded about Him saying that He performed miracles (They claimed it was an occultic practice he learned as a child in Egypt) that he did heal people, and they confirm many Biblical accounts of His life. What documents prove that He was not perfect when over 24,000 within about one hundred years of His life do?

This is a great forum, I too agree that there is much though put into it. Religion is obviously very important. As several people have mentioned, it has been the cause of may wars/conflicts/and inhumanities in history. I hold to the truth that Christianity approves of none of them. They have all used religion as a guise. Hitler was not a Christian, and not only was he wrong in what he did, but the church in Germany was wrong not to stop him. Jesus would have been the first to confront him.

Well, thanks for the ideas and thoughts again. I hope to respond to other stuff later. Have a great week everyone!

posted 11-07-98 09:20 PM ET            

I know I sometimes get a "spirtual high", but not with religion: I get the greatest feeling when I learn something new, like, yesterday, I learned how your nerves generate electrical signals. VERY COOL! I was in a gret mood for the rest of the day.

And how do you know there is anything religious to do with your "high"? Perhaps you are just having a good day. Perhaps it was something you did. I'm sure science can explain why you feel so good, so I don't think it's very smart to credit it to spirits, especially when you have no proof of it. That's another thing I don't like about religion- anything you don't understand you say we "weren't meant to know", credit it to God, and leave it at that. I hate that. We should never assume we "weren't meant to know something", because it stifles our creative abilities.

posted 11-07-98 09:49 PM ET            

Another upside, religion gave civilizations throughout history, a will & a reason to do things. It may be war, which is bad. But don't forget, the reason the pyramids were built for the Egyptian religion. Plus, would people back then do anything of importance, if they had nothing to look forward to after they die. I doubt alot of people would try hard on such works of art such as the pyramids, if they didn;t think they'd have a place next to the king/God.

posted 11-07-98 10:30 PM ET            

I'm an atheist myself, but there are a lot of atheists out there who can be just as fanatical and hard-headed as any "religious wacko". If atheists are not constantly exposed to the many resonable people who hold religious views, they sometimes tend to grow complacent and (ironically) begin to adopt holier-than-thou attitudes.

The most ardent believers in any cause are the converts. Since most of the world is in some way religious, almost the entire population of atheists are converts. I think that this may account for the "aggressiveness" with which some atheists pursue the debate. It is my experience that almost all of the "religious" people I have met regarded it as a simple, personal, private thing that they did on there own. I have met numerous atheists who are very "fanatical" in their crusade to prove that religion has caused nothing but problems in the world, and that everybody would be better off as an atheist.

Atheism is a position held by many intellectuals, and Atheists have been quite adept at casting their position as the morally superior one, making the mildly religious afraid to speak out for fear of being stigmatized as a fool or a nut. So, if you are religious, speak out!

posted 11-08-98 12:05 AM ET            

-- Larry
1. very intelegent people think differently from the average person.. this makes it difficult for many atheist to belive any human characterisics put into god as he is so vastly more intelegent and wise he very liekly sees things very differently
2. (personal)Defintion of love: The instinctive need to care and protect for one's species. note: any 2 ppl that are mentaly compatible will 80% love each other, and I dont just mean yer mate call it 'brotherly love' if ye want, if careinf for one another was not nessisary for survival then love would not exist example: the snake
the snake(suposedly) does not have the feeling of love because it is unessisary, when it lays its eggs, it covers them the best it can the leaves and does not return, hatched snake are on their own.. if this god equaly loves all.. then y do snakes not have the right to love one another?

posted 11-08-98 01:59 AM ET            

Another controversy for ye: In many cases, would we (as a species) not be better off without religion? Think about it. Conflicting beliefs between the major religions is a main factor in many wars and aggression between nations. A perfect example of this is Iran and the U.S.. Iran hails the U.S. as the great Satan; why?? Because of religion. Our beliefs of religious freedom (among other freedoms, i.e. women's rights) conflict with what their religion tells them what is "right".

I also think that in the future, there will be less and less support for religion. They will lose thier following. Look at the past compared to now. A far less number of people actually belive in religion than even a hundred years ago. And why is that? Because that many more people realize that religions explanation of the creation of the universe among other things is a crock. According to the bible, the universe was created in seven days. According to science, the universe is roughly 15 billion years old, and the earth itself being 5-6 billion years old (if I remember right). So, religion changes their views to meet that of science, so they say that one day could actually have been many million or billions of years. Each time something new like that comes up, relgion changes their views, much like the earth acutally revolving around the sun, etc. And everytime they do that, I think that religion looses more and more of its credibility, until eventually, pretty much everyone will think it is a load of sh!t.

posted 11-08-98 02:17 AM ET            

I also disagree that science can explain everything. (And I realize that you didn't say that, I'm just building off what you said) Science is great, but not everything can be explained, and not everything proven scientifically. For instance, you can't prove that George Washington was the first president of the US because there is no way of repeating it again and again in controlled circumstances observing and recording data. It also cannot explain conciousness, or actually anything spiritual. A person could argue that it can, but I don't think they would get very far proving it.

DRCreeper: I sure hope God thinks and feels differently than we do about things! He wouldn't be much of a God if didn't. (-8 But as far as I believe, God does tell us much about Himself in the Bible. That's what we know what God is like.

You think that love is instinctive eh? Why do so many people hate then? How could racism be explained if love is part of genetically. How can hate be so prominent? What makes us love some things and not others? I don't understand what you are saying about 80% of people loving one another. I think that maybe there was a typo of some sort there and I'm not quite getting it. I don't know about the average person, but I can honestly say that I love everyone, not just 80% and not just who I am mentally compatible with. I'm sure you have a good explanation for this because you seem to be a very logical and intelligent person, and I doubt you would believe something unless you could prove it quite well.

You asked about me be a preacher or a tele-evangelist. As far as I know, I'm just some 16 year old kid who loves Jesus! (-8 I was Jr. Pastor of my old Church (I recently moved out east) and I did preach a few sermons. I'd love to go into seminary and become a Pastor, that's what I am studying to do. But I would also love being a missionary. Hey, whatever! (-8

I have to agree that athiests have had their faults, but so have religious people and lots of Christians! It's nice to know that we don't have to be perfect for God to love us. For those of you who are athiests, how much faith do you have the there is no God? It must require a lot of faith to believe that there is this universe that has just always been here, and that despite the odds, you evolved from mere chemicals and now sit in front of a computer screen with this thing dubbed as 'conciousness' and you have no idea where it came from. It also must be very confusing to think that when you die, you will simply not exist, and that if you die at the age of 30 or the age of 80, it really makes no difference in the scheme of things. The universe after all, can go on without you right? Well, whether you care or not, I love you regardless, and if you die without knowing Jesus Christ, I will cry a lot. And you do make a difference in my life even if you have no effect on the universe in eternity. I LOVE YOU ALL AND SO DOES JESUS!!!

posted 11-08-98 02:29 AM ET            

I hope that I didn't sound to harsh there. I didn't mean to, and if I am offending anyone, please let me know because I will try to minimize it. But sometimes the truth offends. Jesus sure wasn't afraid of dishing out truth even if it offended. Anyway, PLEASE have a great week!!! I love 'ya all, and may it be known that if you need anything, I'd be super happy to do anything I can for you.

posted 11-08-98 07:54 AM ET            

And you can't judge science, by it's early days because then it was a lot like religion. Someone had a theory, they thought about it, and if they liked the idea they told everyone that it was true. And they belived them. Only in the last few hundered years did scientists realy start checking and rececking their data to make sure that they where right.

posted 11-08-98 10:23 AM ET            

Larry Boy - As someone else pointed out God is so far above us by definition we cannot ascribe our atributes to him they will not fit. In addition the question I was asking you to answer was,

God Love You!

Please define this it is far to ambigous <sp?> going by term please Define God (or are you using my definition?) Love (or are you using Dcreepers' definition?) You (please clarify under what conditions this applies)

Thank you

In addition I ask you to answer the question

Where (heaven or hell) did the purpetrators of such acts as, the crusades, the inquisition, the holacaust, and other similar atrocities go? Why?

Part two of the above
Where did the victims of the above atrocities go (heaven or hell)? Why?

Lastly I have had the privilage of studying not only the Christian bible but also the Jewish Talmud and though several of the stories in it about Christ are not flattering (one relates how he violated the most holy day of the jewish year) several praise his scholarly excellence bringing him as an example of how ones origins should not interfere with ones life.

talon54 - Why should a day in the bible change what it means? The bible is at least in part a history of geneoligies in such a historical book it would be counterproductive to change the meaning of such a basic term as "day." Secondly Jesus was not for the majority of his life teaching to goatherds he was speaking to fairly learned men (for instance in order to be included on the jewish high court at the time one had to know 70 different languages, have a commanding grasp of biology, mathematics, and astronomy, aside from being familliar with the entire Talmud (a volume which is over 30 books)) I am fairly certain that they would have understood energy and fields fairly well (admittedly this knowledge was not as advanced as our current science but was at least on par with that of the greeks.)

Heckler

posted 11-08-98 01:48 PM ET            

I don't know if I can define love to your expectations. I'm not a scholar, but here goes. There are I believe 8 definitions of love, in my opinion there are only 7 because two of them have to do with sexual attraction and I would probably lump them both into the same thing. The word for love that is used to describe God is in Greek 'agape'. Agape love is unconditional pure love. Agape love is described in 1st Corinthians chapter 13, I'll quote a bit of it: "And now I will show you the most excellent way... Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perserveres. Love never fails... And now these three remail: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." That is agape love, God's love. It means that no matter what we do, no matter what happens, He loves us. He loves us like the perfect Father loves his children. He would do anything for us. He even sacrificed His own perfect Son that the rest of His children could then have a good relationship with Him. That's God's love. That's my definition. Also, see John 15:13 and surrounding verses "This is love, that one would lay down his life for his friends." and 1st John chapter 4.

Dealing with the issue of the attrocities, I cannot say where those people went. Number one, because I never met them. Number two because I am not the judge of this world, God is. He will decide, and this is the basis for His decision: Did this person love Jesus Christ with all their heart, and all their mind, and all their soul, and all their strength? Now, you don't need to know Jesus' name to love him. One of my friends was a missionary in Thailand and he shared Christ with an old woman there. After he told her, she said "I have loved Jesus all my life, but now I know His name." You see, God reveals Himself to everyone, look for Him in your own life. Anyway, God is the judge, and I trust His judgement perfectly though I suspect some of you may not. I guess that's something I can't address. About the attrocities that were committed: The Bible does not define degrees of sin, only degrees of earthly punishment. The Bible's position is that if you sin, you deserve to die. That includes me, that includes Hitler, that includes you. It is Jesus and Jesus only that saves a person and brings them to God, not how, when, or how often they sin and what good deeds they do. The Bible says in Matthew 5:19 that if you break one commandment, then you have broken them all. That is the grace of Jesus Christ, that no matter what you have done, are doing, or will do, you are forgiven because of God's love. If you are willing to accept Jesus who is that love, then you accept complete forgiveness and God will change your life. So you cannot say that one person is worse than another. You can't pin one person and call them more evil than yourself because you are not the judge. As for the victims, they are just like the victims of our lies, or out deceit. It is not what happened to them that matters, but do they have faith in Jesus? I hope that answers your questions.

Mortis: My point was that science has been wrong, and true religion never has. As you said, science only started to be science in its own form within, well, the last two centuries in my opinion. Religion has been around since the beginning of time. In my opinion, this gives Christianity a big advantage in reliability over science. Also, what makes you think that science is so wonderful. I mean, it is true that it has done good things like medicine etc. but it also developed nuclear weapons, and biological and chemical weapons. I would go so far as to say that if there had been no technical advancement past say, the iron age, Hitler would never have been able to kill so many people nor would have Stalin been able to. Those 10 million people that Hitler killed probably would have had pretty good odds against the German soldiers had the germans been armed with bronze spears. Don't you suppose? Let's say science gets to the point where we can use matter and energy easily and exchangeably. For instance, I can walk up to a machine and ask it to make me a plate of spaghetti. Great, but can't someone else ask it to make them an anti-matter warhead? Boyd says it like this: As our power grows, and our decisions have the ability to affect more and more people, we can either hurt or help more. So in the end, doesn't it matter about the morality of the people rather than the technology they have? Let me go back to Hitler to show this. Hitler, had he been a moral person, could have helped a lot of people with his power, like a mother theresa with a world power behind him. Instead he used it to kill and destroy. Isn't it more important that we develope moral character and not scientific developement? I am not agains technology, if I were, I wouldn't be typing this, but I think that morality and in fact religion is far more important. I'm eagerly awaiting your thoughs.

One last thing Heckler, Jesus wasn't just speaking to the well thought Jews of His time, He was talking to everyone who would live for at least the next two thousand years on earth. The Gospels that we have were written by fairly common men, though Paul who wrote most of the epistles was quite learned, the others were Matthew: a tax collector, Luke: A doctor (not like today) John: A fisherman I believe, and I'm not sure about Mark. The writers of the Gospels were sharing the message of Jesus with common people so what they included was the simple stuff. It is possible that Jesus did speak about energy fields etc. with the people would understand it, it just wasn't recorded because apparently God doesn't think that is as important as the message. Anyways, I will say it again because I mean it: I love 'ya all!

posted 11-08-98 01:49 PM ET            

I don't know if I can define love to your expectations. I'm not a scholar, but here goes. There are I believe 8 definitions of love, in my opinion there are only 7 because two of them have to do with sexual attraction and I would probably lump them both into the same thing. The word for love that is used to describe God is in Greek 'agape'. Agape love is unconditional pure love. Agape love is described in 1st Corinthians chapter 13, I'll quote a bit of it: "And now I will show you the most excellent way... Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perserveres. Love never fails... And now these three remail: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." That is agape love, God's love. It means that no matter what we do, no matter what happens, He loves us. He loves us like the perfect Father loves his children. He would do anything for us. He even sacrificed His own perfect Son that the rest of His children could then have a good relationship with Him. That's God's love. That's my definition. Also, see John 15:13 and surrounding verses "This is love, that one would lay down his life for his friends." and 1st John chapter 4.

Dealing with the issue of the attrocities, I cannot say where those people went. Number one, because I never met them. Number two because I am not the judge of this world, God is. He will decide, and this is the basis for His decision: Did this person love Jesus Christ with all their heart, and all their mind, and all their soul, and all their strength? Now, you don't need to know Jesus' name to love him. One of my friends was a missionary in Thailand and he shared Christ with an old woman there. After he told her, she said "I have loved Jesus all my life, but now I know His name." You see, God reveals Himself to everyone, look for Him in your own life. Anyway, God is the judge, and I trust His judgement perfectly though I suspect some of you may not. I guess that's something I can't address. About the attrocities that were committed: The Bible does not define degrees of sin, only degrees of earthly punishment. The Bible's position is that if you sin, you deserve to die. That includes me, that includes Hitler, that includes you. It is Jesus and Jesus only that saves a person and brings them to God, not how, when, or how often they sin and what good deeds they do. The Bible says in Matthew 5:19 that if you break one commandment, then you have broken them all. That is the grace of Jesus Christ, that no matter what you have done, are doing, or will do, you are forgiven because of God's love. If you are willing to accept Jesus who is that love, then you accept complete forgiveness and God will change your life. So you cannot say that one person is worse than another. You can't pin one person and call them more evil than yourself because you are not the judge. As for the victims, they are just like the victims of our lies, or out deceit. It is not what happened to them that matters, but do they have faith in Jesus? I hope that answers your questions.

Mortis: My point was that science has been wrong, and true religion never has. As you said, science only started to be science in its own form within, well, the last two centuries in my opinion. Religion has been around since the beginning of time. In my opinion, this gives Christianity a big advantage in reliability over science. Also, what makes you think that science is so wonderful. I mean, it is true that it has done good things like medicine etc. but it also developed nuclear weapons, and biological and chemical weapons. I would go so far as to say that if there had been no technical advancement past say, the iron age, Hitler would never have been able to kill so many people nor would have Stalin been able to. Those 10 million people that Hitler killed probably would have had pretty good odds against the German soldiers had the germans been armed with bronze spears. Don't you suppose? Let's say science gets to the point where we can use matter and energy easily and exchangeably. For instance, I can walk up to a machine and ask it to make me a plate of spaghetti. Great, but can't someone else ask it to make them an anti-matter warhead? Boyd says it like this: As our power grows, and our decisions have the ability to affect more and more people, we can either hurt or help more. So in the end, doesn't it matter about the morality of the people rather than the technology they have? Let me go back to Hitler to show this. Hitler, had he been a moral person, could have helped a lot of people with his power, like a mother theresa with a world power behind him. Instead he used it to kill and destroy. Isn't it more important that we develope moral character and not scientific developement? I am not agains technology, if I were, I wouldn't be typing this, but I think that morality and in fact religion is far more important. I'm eagerly awaiting your thoughs.

One last thing Heckler, Jesus wasn't just speaking to the well thought Jews of His time, He was talking to everyone who would live for at least the next two thousand years on earth. The Gospels that we have were written by fairly common men, though Paul who wrote most of the epistles was quite learned, the others were Matthew: a tax collector, Luke: A doctor (not like today) John: A fisherman I believe, and I'm not sure about Mark. The writers of the Gospels were sharing the message of Jesus with common people so what they included was the simple stuff. It is possible that Jesus did speak about energy fields etc. with the people would understand it, it just wasn't recorded because apparently God doesn't think that is as important as the message. Anyways, I will say it again because I mean it: I love 'ya all!

posted 11-08-98 04:04 PM ET            

Another picking point I have is evolution. I am a strong believer in the theory of evolution. I admit that some people may have the order of succession out of whack, but nonetheless, I still think that the theory itself holds true: Survival of the Fittest is what it comes down to. If you don't think that this holds true. Look at the world of medicine, in the past couple of years. Some of the biggest scares have come from new strains of bacteria and new viruses. Bacteria are remarkable in their ability to quickly evolve. Less than 20 years ago, we could treat many bacteria, especially the common ones such as E. coli. But now, extremely common bacteria have become resistant to our antibioitics because a few have spontaneously mutated, and these mutations provided them with an ability to produce a protein that disables the anitbiotic (note: I am not saying that all mutations in bacteria give them resistance to antibiotics, and resistance to one antibiotic does not necessarily mean that it will be resistant to the next antibiotic). This is the basis behind my project in my ap bio class. Through continuous exposure to antibiotics, we are going to force a previously nonresistant strain of E. coli to become resistant; or it will die. Those that develop the resistance will surivive and procreate, those that don't will die. This is evolution. A friend of mine that is extremely religious and does not believe in the theory of evolution is helping me on this project. I don't think he realizes what the real meaning of this project is.

posted 11-08-98 04:35 PM ET            

Also, laws have been deemed incorrect. Even now, Einsteins THEORY of relativity (not saying I disagree with it, just emphasizing the word 'theory') has begun to make us second guess Newton's LAWS of physics. These laws which as you say are "aboslute" are being re-thought. Certain parts of gravity don't work out when REALLY big things or REALLY small things are interacting, or at extremely high energy levels. It seems to me that all laws are absolute until they are proven otherwise. (-8

Religion cannot explain everything, only a personal relationship with Jesus Christ can do that. That is what Christianity is. Too bad it's not a try-before-you-buy deal or everyone would be able to see how amazing Jesus in your life is. Have a great day Hermy, and everyone else too!!! Love 'ya!

posted 11-08-98 07:23 PM ET            

People who committed atrocities where did they go?
Since I have stated that I dont believe in hell,they didnt go there. Since I also believe in reincarnation, I believe the souls on both sides ,those who committed the atrocities and their victims,rested in the spiritual planes before they reembodied again to start over.

I believe there are many planes in heaven, like octaves on a piano keyboard.It is seperated by higher and lower vibrations.
People who commit atrocities go to the lower planes for a while and it feels like your in hell.This is where the descriptions of hell come from.
If you saw the movie Ghost,you saw the bad dude,who got killed when he was hit by the car, get dragged down to the lower levels by the dark looking beings.People who commit atrocities have a low vibration,and so they are drawn to that level.

Their victims probably went to higher planes to rest until they came back.

Days of the Bible-- all I am saying about the days thing is that it was meant to show seven distinct,seperate cycles of creation.

posted 11-08-98 09:35 PM ET            

So called human emotions are not originally human, as Christians (Jews, Islamics) know, we were created in the image of God.

Science cannot disprove or prove God, to believe in something is the basis of faith.

posted 11-09-98 08:00 AM ET            

To those who claim that because God created man in his image our emotions are not ours but his this contradicts the idea that God loves everything if our emotions come from him where did we get hate, anger, frustration? Second point (which has been made before) God is Omniscient an intellect of that caliber is beyond our ability to compare ourselves to, it would be akin to saying that Einstein was the same as the rest of us when it came to understanding physics.

Is there anyone lurking who differs in opinion on the attributes of God (i.e. he/she/it is not Omni-potent, present, scient) a new opinion would be refreshing.

Heckler

Larry Boy, please dont be upset when I ask you to concider again my previous question about the perpertrators and victims of atrocities you have yet to offer a truly satisfactory answer and have in my opinion danced around the one your beliefs seem to show "must" be true.

posted 11-09-98 11:22 AM ET            

The way some people appeal to mutation verges on the mysterious, like an appeal to miracles to explain everyday processes that don't need them.

Natural selection does not imply mutation. It just means that some individuals die with fewer offspring than others. When you use antibiotics some bacteria die, so they cease multiplying, so there are fewer of those in future. But some bacteria don't die, so there are more of those.

The bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics weren't produced by mutation as a result of applying the antibiotics; they were always there. Now that the other bacteria have been killed, they have the world to themselves, and since bacteria multiply very fast, they fill it very quickly.

posted 11-09-98 01:08 PM ET            

Because the question is wrong in fact.

Native Amerindians do believe in one God, creator of all things, whom they call the Great Spirit.

Australian aboriginals have dreamtime legends in which the creator visits the land in humble form, and teaches moral lessons to those who are willing to receive them. They conceive of the creator as distinct from the dreamtime ancestors, who subsequently reshaped the land. The dreamtime legends are mostly about those ancestors, but they speak of the creator as being before them.

Aboriginal legends are similar to ancient Greek mythology, which also saw animals and inanimate objects as transformed human beings. (Like Lamarckian evolution in reverse!)

The ancient Greeks believed that the Olympian gods were descended from earlier, more primitive (at least morally more primitive) beings, and that all things were eventually derived from the primeval `chaos' which by stages was replaced by a more orderly
`cosmos'.

Incidentally, when the English renditions of the New Testament speak of the `world' it's a translation from the Greek word `cosmos'.

Were the Greeks monotheistic before Christianity? Socrates, Plato and Aristotle believed in The One, who was the source of all things.

In the ancient legends of many lands, the polytheists agree that the many gods are derived beings. So those of them who thought that the potential for order indicated that Mind always existed, even when the derived gods did not yet exist, deduced that there is an eternal Mind, even while they practised the daily rituals of serving the derived gods.

Monotheism in ancient China? Yes, it's called Taoism. Taoists call God the Jade Emperor, because they picture God's throne as being made from the substance that was most precious to the ancient Chinese. Jade was expensive because it had to be imported from
places as far as India. Jade was also regarded as symbolising eternal life. There is a similar image of God's throne in the New Testament, which pictures it as made of a precious mineral such as Emerald or Sapphire.

Monotheism in India? Yes, there are some strict monotheist movements within Hinduism, and Hindus generally believe in one God, and interpret the many lesser gods as manifestations of the one God's presence and activities in this world. Ask a Brahmin.

Do Buddhist believe in one God? Depends on the school of Buddhism! Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) himself referred approvingly to the Holy Land in the west. He also spoke of the need to live a moral life in this world, and that the conscientious would be rewarded in their life in the `next world'.

Buddha's Eightfold Way is not some morally relativist treatise, it is a set of firm principles by which a life should be lived:
Right Thinking, Right Action, Right Mindedness, and the others.

The first Buddhist emperor of India, Asoka (Ashok), renounced war as a policy, after leading a life of unremitting bloodshed before he became enlightened and saw the error of his ways. However, his government was not morally lax, it was strict. Offences were swiftly punished. No namby-pamby pseudo-`Buddhism' for him. I think you would find that the Dalai Lamas throughout Tibetan history have been quite stern to the severe lawbreakers, too.

Some people assert that Jesus learnt his teachings from Buddhism (though there's no evidence that he travelled to India), or that he learnt magic tricks in Egypt (though professional magicians failed to replicate his works), or that he was actually a Hindu
(though the historical evidence is of influence in the other direction). Orthodox Jews sometimes say that all that Jesus taught was already part of their teaching. You could make a case, based on partial similarity, for Jesus's teachings to come from anywhere you like, though the Orthodox Jews are closest to understanding, because he stated that his teachings are grounded firmly in the Tanach (Old Testament), and anyone who makes the comparison can see that they are.

Did Jesus demand that everyone become Jews?
No, he criticised everyone, Jew and non-Jew,
including his own supporters. When he met a person he would ask them to give up the one error that they were most attached to. `You lack one thing.'

(This theme of not being attached to the world or to one's habits, is very strong in both Buddhism and Christianity, but it's also in Old Testament texts that antedate both.)

The Roman soldier was asked not to use his position to extort people. The Jewish religious authorities not to demand that the people take on burdens too great to be borne.
A gentile woman was challenged to explain why she, whom the Jews considered a `dog' should share in any of the Jews' spiritual benefits;
instead of being huffy, she replied humbly that a dog may receive occasional crumbs from a family's table; he approved of her answer,
and they continued speaking.

In those days, Jewish men were not in the custom of speaking to women outside their household, so it was quite shocking to the authorities to see Jesus not only doing that, but giving women religious training on the same terms as men. Some people today still find it shocking.

At temple, the men worshipped in the inner court, while the women were relegated to the outer court, children had to be seen and not heard and to keep a resptful distance, and gentiles, if they were allowed in the precincts at all, had to remain at the extreme edges of temple. That isn't a Biblical requirement, but at the time it seemed the right thing to do. Jesus, however, taught men, women and children together.

Jews have always been keen on education, and since a mother is responsible for early education, she had to be well taught. However, as in most societies, it was generally considered that a woman's primary responsibility was to the family home, and that included cooking. Jesus went beyond that thinking, by commending Mary for wanting to study, ahead of Martha who wanted to cook.
Whatever some `modern Christians' may have asserted about `woman's place is in the home', in the first century Christian women were often highly educated and businesswomen in their own right.

A later example is Mohamed's first wife (his only wife until she died), a devout Christian, who owned her own trading business. They met when she hired him as a camel conductor (his early profession).

Later the `woman must not be seen outside the home' idea became entrenched, but it has no defence in the religious texts.

Kings always tend to mistreat women (and men and everybody), and the Torah (the Law of Moses) states that kings are a bad idea, and that although people want to have strong military leaders, they shouldn't, because then they will pay higher taxes, be conscripted into the army, and generally suffer mistreatment by their own leaders.

posted 11-09-98 05:26 PM ET            

Heckler: I cannot read or speak Greek though I'm interested in learning it, hopefully this coming summer. Therefore, I must go by the translations that I have been given in English and the footnotes. The work gone into translating the Bible was one of the most amazing and impressive caliber, therefore I am fairly confident in the translation and yes, I do take Jesus Word as what it is in most cases. Sometimes just out and saying something is not the best way to put it. Jesus said things in extremes, "He spoke as one with authority". It is not, however, only Jesus' teachings that I believe, but the entire Bible, that is the protestant Bible and 66 standard books. I've never read straight through the Catholic Apocropha. In response to your quote on Matthew 5:17-18 "Do no think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." I disagree with your interpretation of this verse that suggests that Jesus' coming changes nothing in regard to the "Old Testament Laws". It is clear, if you take the Bible as a whole (I believe that to read something truly in context, your must look at it in the context of the entire Scriptures), then it is obvious that Jesus made useless the law of the old testament. That is what He means by 'fulfill'. Jesus was the answer to the Law, He was the man that the prophets foretold. The entire law was written to build up to Jesus, to prepare everyone for His coming and following His teachings. Jesus does not throw the Law aside (abolish it), but rather, He says "Look at this law! Look at these prophesies! Can you not see that this is telling you how to live right? You have taken it it completely wrong! It's not about legalistic interpretation, it is about your heart!" Jesus then spends the rest of the sermon on the Mt. addresses ways that the law was being mistreated including thoughts of hate being the same as murder, thoughts of lust being the same as adultery, evil intents of the heart of some people who divorced, speaking the truth always and not just when you say "I promise", treating people better than yourself, loving enemies, and on and on and on. The Law was written so that people's hearts would be on God, not so that their minds could be on some book. In this way, Jesus does not abolish the Law, but fulfills it by explaining how it was being misused and helping the people interpret it. If that is not enought, then just quickly glance through the book of Galatians. The entire letter was written to show that the law in itself means nothing, only when coupled with faith in Jesus Christ's life changing righteous does it mean squat. *Larry stops for a fwe quick breaths.* (-8

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your the second paragraph of your 11/9/98 8:00 response. Are you saying that we cannot grasp the fullness of God and we cannot put ourselves on His level as we cannot say that we are all equivelant to Einstein in physics? I'm sorry I don't understand, but in order to avoid more confusion on my part, I'll wait for clarification to respond. I'm sorry Heckler!

I'll try to answer your question better, or at least more simply. Basically, my answer goes like this: You cannot generalize everyone who committed an atrocity and everyone who unto whom an atrocity was commited saying that all of them will go to one place or another. A personal relationship with Jesus Christ is the only factor that determines the afterlife of someone. Since this relationship is personal, it would be impossible to say which group goes where because it is not a group issue. Thus, no one knows but God, and God will judge justly. That is my position. MUST it be so? No, but I believe there is sufficient evidence showing that my God is a just God to believe it personally. If this isn't a good enough response, I'm sorry, I don't know what is. What response would you like me to give you?

DeStrider: The O.C. Supertones (A Christian SKA band! (SKA FOREVER BABY!)) says it best in their song "That's just life in Orange County California" (Which you can listen to at their website http://www.jesusfreak.com/supertones/hearmusic.htm) Anyway, part of the song goes "Well if you was a Christian, then you never was just sittin' up in Church and saying what a Christian does..." No one can be a Christian and then not be. Perhaps you mean that Hitler went to Church? Ahhh! I don't even want to start thinking about that psycho though!

OK, I think that's it, off to Calculus! Have a great day all of you, and to quote my good fried Marcie "Jesus loves you! Let that make your day AWESOME! )

posted 11-21-98 12:10 AM ET            

ugh, now I gotta start diggin out books for the author's name.. oi

Fantasy books/authors

WoT series (currently (IIRC)7 books by th infamous Robert Jordan)

R.A. Salvador ( excelent writer, but he kinda got tired of writeing the drizzt books but his contract said he ahd to write a few more, so his last few drizzt books stunk,, he has a new book out.. Deamon something I think suposedly its his pride and joy)

Mercades Lackey ( she is pretty good, her books have realy only 1 of two modes through out the books, 1 Realy good. 2 sucky sucky sucky)

Terry Goodkin, writine the sword of truth novels, very good writer, but a tad, um sadistic

Raymond E Fiest, cant forget the wonderful writer of the Rift War Saga and the books that tie into the same world

Sci fi.

posted 11-12-98 09:31 PM ET            

Again you missed the point of the question. I wasn't asking about each side as a whole but rather that you take one individual from each side, one spanish priest, assume he truly believed, and then proceeded to torture others to force them to believe the same as he did (I will not go into the modes of torture used you might be eating when you read this) when that failed he proceeded to burn the victim alive. The victim even till the moment of death refused to submit. Now using those two answer the question. Please don't just eat what you are given spiritually constantly challenge what is placed before you, apply logic to what you are told and if it is found wanting say so. If you desire to continue this conversation please feel free to e-mail me but I do not wish to clutter the boards with a personal discussion.

Heckler

posted 11-13-98 07:22 PM ET            

"A Man who cannot believe in something greater than himself cannot bear the burden of himself"

posted 11-15-98 05:05 PM ET            

Heckler: There were a two confusing things that you said that I can't understand, please help me as I do want to answer your questions.
1. "Secondly no the work on translation of the Bible was not good" If none of it was not good, then aren't you saying it is all true or at least all good?

2. You said there are many things wrong with my statement, I'd like to see more of them so that I can revise my statement. The one you pointed out spoke of war. Yes, there was war before Jesus came at about BC 5 and there is war after Jesus ascended at about BC 30 or so. Jesus said "There will always be wars and rumors of wars." I guess I don't see what was disproven by that statement. Please help me out there. Thanks!

posted 11-15-98 08:29 PM ET            

--I testify that athiesm is false and Christianity is true out of experience.--

posted 11-18-98 09:58 PM ET            

umm Fantasys are good, but for now I'm sticking to a few selected authors and the Forgotten Realms

posted 11-19-98 08:06 AM ET            

Scifi
Asimov (Foundation series.)
Ray Bradbury (all of them)
Robert Heinlein (all of them)*Stranger in a Strange Land
Fiction General

Herman Hesse (Siddhartha)
(Narcissus and Goldman)
(Beneath the Wheel)
(Steppenwolf)
Thomas wolfe (Look Homeward Angel)