Some thoughts for non-believers

[Symmetry]

If the Believers spouted Dogma, then the non-believers merely troll'd, closed their minds to anything except themselves, and sat in the darkness that is ignorance.

Out of interest then, what is you response to the OP's suggestion that certain symmetrical elements of the human body prove that God created us?

Or that the foundation of the modern Israeli state proves that the Bible is true?

I don't want to appear to troll with this, but whenever I ask where this information is coming from, people seem to drop off the internet. Funny that.

[jonesthecurl]

Don't think it was a discussion. The believers just spouted dogma.

No. Some of the believers have given this question very deep thought, and simply come to the wrong conclusion. If they were spouting dogma (and only that) they'd be unable to argue, only quote. (Of course, some of them do).

[jonesthecurl]

If the Believers spouted Dogma, then the non-believers merely troll'd, closed their minds to anything except themselves, and sat in the darkness that is ignorance.

Again, no.
Most of the believers have grown up in a faith and decided after some thought to accept it.
Most of the non-believers have examined their parents' faith and decided it is nonsense. I guess there might be some who were brought up as atheists, but mostly this is a personal decision and goes against one's training.

[jonesthecurl]

If the Believers spouted Dogma, then the non-believers merely troll'd, closed their minds to anything except themselves, and sat in the darkness that is ignorance.

Out of interest then, what is you response to the OP's suggestion that certain symmetrical elements of the human body prove that God created us?

Or that the foundation of the modern Israeli state proves that the Bible is true?

I don't want to appear to troll with this, but whenever I ask where this information is coming from, people seem to drop off the internet. Funny that.

Oh, I thought he was putting you forward as proof of a god. Pretty flattering, I woulda thought, Sym.

[joecoolfrog]

There is a God, but he created the earth simply to amuse himself and long ago got bored and switched to other forms of entertainment. Well its as good an explanation as any and it certainly indicates why he hasn't shown up for a while .

[Balsiefen]

There was a god, and he created an awesome world full of dinosaurs warring with each other eternally. Then his annoying little bro got hold of an asteroid and messed up all his cool shit so, once he decided he couldn't be bothered to re-evolve everything all over again, he shoved it in the back of a drawer never to look at it again.

[PLAYER57832]

Don't think it was a discussion. The believers just spouted dogma.

No. Some of the believers have given this question very deep thought, and simply come to the wrong conclusion.

And how can you be so sure WE are wrong?

Seriously, while we can debate/discuss this, the truth is it is very hard to even put into words much of why we all believe as we do. That doesn't mean we lack conviction (no matter what the belief), it is a limitation of language and particularly internet speech. Also, some things are just pretty personal and not easy to discuss, particularly in a forum like this.

I think the most we can really hope for is a better understanding of what others think. But, if we come even partway in that goal, it IS accomplishing a lot!

[PLAYER57832]

If the Believers spouted Dogma, then the non-believers merely troll'd, closed their minds to anything except themselves, and sat in the darkness that is ignorance.

Out of interest then, what is you response to the OP's suggestion that certain symmetrical elements of the human body prove that God created us?

Or that the foundation of the modern Israeli state proves that the Bible is true?

I don't want to appear to troll with this, but whenever I ask where this information is coming from, people seem to drop off the internet. Funny that.

I have found the very same thing. The closest I get to an answer is "read the Bible" or "you are just listening to scientists"/"rely on the wrong assumptions". I never get clarity on what those assumptions are .. no matter how much I try, whether here, elsewhere on the internet or the "real world". It is the one thing that makes me very angry. The young earthers purport to be "just wanting the alternatives examined", but refuse any real and true discussion of their ideas and the basis for what they claim are facts or disputes of science.

[jonesthecurl]

Yeah, it doesn't help just to shout "Dogma"! "Blind heathens!" at each other.

...that was a response to your previous post...

[mpjh]

Don't think it was a discussion. The believers just spouted dogma.

No. Some of the believers have given this question very deep thought, and simply come to the wrong conclusion. If they were spouting dogma (and only that) they'd be unable to argue, only quote. (Of course, some of them do).

Sorry, Jonsie, but your ivory tower is showing. Non-believers have responded early in this thread to the symmetry crap with thoughtful points and questions. The response was dogma. These guys are just practicing their sunday-school lessons on the web. It is dogma, not thought that prevails.

[Lord and Master]

Heretics!
Infidels!
Wrong-Side-Of-The-Schism Followers!
All shall burn in eternal agony and torment!

(Or possibly will just live long happy lives where they are quite nice to people, having no particular issue with other's holding different opinions to themselves...)

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah, not a lot of people responding to what Frig and Juan were trying to say, except to say "we are children." Dogma.

But I give some credit to a few of them who do respond thoughtfully in other threads. Not the religious threads, but there are others. And John9 responded..

The young earthers purport to be "just wanting the alternatives examined", but refuse any real and true discussion of their ideas and the basis for what they claim are facts or disputes of science.

Mostly I just find that they are dumb and make your religion look bad.

If the Believers spouted Dogma, then the non-believers merely troll'd, closed their minds to anything except themselves, and sat in the darkness that is ignorance.

Again, no.
Most of the believers have grown up in a faith and decided after some thought to accept it.
Most of the non-believers have examined their parents' faith and decided it is nonsense. I guess there might be some who were brought up as atheists, but mostly this is a personal decision and goes against one's training.

Ditto, as it was for me. And Kotaro didn't respond to Frigidus's post... which made a point about ignorance I think.

[jonesthecurl]

Don't think it was a discussion. The believers just spouted dogma.

No. Some of the believers have given this question very deep thought, and simply come to the wrong conclusion. If they were spouting dogma (and only that) they'd be unable to argue, only quote. (Of course, some of them do).

Sorry, Jonsie, but your ivory tower is showing. Non-believers have responded early in this thread to the symmetry crap with thoughtful points and questions. The response was dogma. These guys are just practicing their sunday-school lessons on the web. It is dogma, not thought that prevails.

's why I said "some of the believers".

[Kotaro]

Out of interest then, what is you response to the OP's suggestion that certain symmetrical elements of the human body prove that God created us?

Or that the foundation of the modern Israeli state proves that the Bible is true?

I don't want to appear to troll with this, but whenever I ask where this information is coming from, people seem to drop off the internet. Funny that.

There is many complex organisms in the body. Some of them even resemble major things in the bible (see; "The Cross of the Human Cell") (I'd post the exact link, but I'm at work and as such, don't have access to my bookmarks).

The fact that the bible predicts many future events that have come to pass is far more then mere coincedence. The rise of the Modern day Israeli states is just 1 of many events predicted in the bible.

And I don't usually drop off the internet, though I do for the weekends, I suppose.

Again, no.
Most of the believers have grown up in a faith and decided after some thought to accept it.
Most of the non-believers have examined their parents' faith and decided it is nonsense. I guess there might be some who were brought up as atheists, but mostly this is a personal decision and goes against one's training.

I'm glad you know so much about believers without actually asking about it. For one, my family actually discouraged finding any religion; partly because they didn't believe, and partly because my mom really loves her crack induced life and doesn't want that to change.

Secondly, I've met many non-believers who were merely never exposed to any evidence of Christ's presence, and have never even been exposed to a Church community, or the infinite love of Christ. Some have even been encouraged, and even forced, NOT to explore the possibility of Faith.

I have found the very same thing. The closest I get to an answer is "read the Bible" or "you are just listening to scientists"/"rely on the wrong assumptions". I never get clarity on what those assumptions are .. no matter how much I try, whether here, elsewhere on the internet or the "real world". It is the one thing that makes me very angry. The young earthers purport to be "just wanting the alternatives examined", but refuse any real and true discussion of their ideas and the basis for what they claim are facts or disputes of science.

I find that, it's quite helpful if people are educated in the matters they discuss. As someone who has been on both sides of the argument, not being raised in Christianity, I find it quite easy to respond to both arguments. However, when and someone questions, "Where's your proof that the bible predicted this?!?", and we quote scripture, you call bullshit, even though there's this little book that predicted the events long before they happened.

None of us are refusing or disputing science. That would be like saying "Oxygen doesn't exist! Science is wrong!". However, we are refuting that science is the end all, be all, of Creation theories.

Ditto, as it was for me. And Kotaro didn't respond to Frigidus's post... which made a point about ignorance I think.

I didn't respond to a lot of posts. There are 15 + pages here, and I only just came into the thread. Sorry I didn't search through and respond to everything said in the 15 pages at Midnight.

I find it quite ignorant to be calling a lot of people "hypocrites" and "ignorant", when just responding to these few comments, i had to go through 4-5 posts of spam and crap, and as such, I overlook trolling looking posts.

I'm not ignoring a good argument; I'm trying to ignore some of the crap that isn't brought on by non-believers or believers persay, but just the same Random CC user spouting crap, which seems to happen in every forum of the board.

[Juan_Bottom]

It's like Sim City. Haven't you ever started a fire in your city, or randomly demolished buildings, or somehow fucked things up for the fun of it, and watched people panic, because it would be boring otherwise? To see if your city could still make it? That's what God was thinking when he made Lucifer: "this ought to be interesting".

OK, I can buy that.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Ditto, as it was for me. And Kotaro didn't respond to Frigidus's post... which made a point about ignorance I think.



I didn't respond to a lot of posts. There are 15 + pages here, and I only just came into the thread. Sorry I didn't search through and respond to everything said in the 15 pages at Midnight.

I find it quite ignorant to be calling a lot of people "hypocrites" and "ignorant", when just responding to these few comments, i had to go through 4-5 posts of spam and crap, and as such, I overlook trolling looking posts.

I'm not ignoring a good argument; I'm trying to ignore some of the crap that isn't brought on by non-believers or believers persay, but just the same Random CC user spouting crap, which seems to happen in every forum of the board.

Ok, here ya go buddy.

EDIT: @ Juan- That's a philosophical question about free will. If you're determinist then yeah, God did know.

Not Really. Here's 4 points that seem to me indisputable given the common definition of the Christian God.

1. God knows everything about everything

2. God created everything

3. Given the first two points, God knew everything there was to know about everything before he created it

4. Given the third point, God knew Satan was a bad egg

Where am I wrong there?

[PLAYER57832]

Out of interest then, what is you response to the OP's suggestion that certain symmetrical elements of the human body prove that God created us?

Or that the foundation of the modern Israeli state proves that the Bible is true?

I don't want to appear to troll with this, but whenever I ask where this information is coming from, people seem to drop off the internet. Funny that.

There is many complex organisms in the body. Some of them even resemble major things in the bible (see; "The Cross of the Human Cell") (I'd post the exact link, but I'm at work and as such, don't have access to my bookmarks).

People find many "links" in the Bible, but the key is whether this is what the Bible itself says or something that people try to paint onto text. Codexes are a prime example. Some people believe in them, but most scholars have found absolutely no real link between these "codes" and anything real. So, too with these "symetry" issues.

If its not actually IN the Bible, it must be questioned. Worse, most such things, at their root, go far from taking people toward God. Many of these things are leading to major divisions in our church today. Christ is a uniter, not a divider of God's people. Even the early church had dissention over some subjects. Why were they allowed to persist in the Bible? Probably because these are issues about which humans are allowed to disagree, about which humans in relation with God can find different answers. Christ told us "he who believes in me shall have eternal life". He did not say "he who believes in symetry, he who thinks the Earth was created in 7 days... etc.".

The fact that the bible predicts many future events that have come to pass is far more then mere coincedence. The rise of the Modern day Israeli states is just 1 of many events predicted in the bible.

I have found the very same thing. The closest I get to an answer is "read the Bible" or "you are just listening to scientists"/"rely on the wrong assumptions". I never get clarity on what those assumptions are .. no matter how much I try, whether here, elsewhere on the internet or the "real world". It is the one thing that makes me very angry. The young earthers purport to be "just wanting the alternatives examined", but refuse any real and true discussion of their ideas and the basis for what they claim are facts or disputes of science.

I find that, it's quite helpful if people are educated in the matters they discuss. As someone who has been on both sides of the argument, not being raised in Christianity, I find it quite easy to respond to both arguments. However, when and someone questions, "Where's your proof that the bible predicted this?!?", and we quote scripture, you call bullshit, even though there's this little book that predicted the events long before they happened.

I don't believe I have ever said "bullshit" to scripture. I HAVE said that while some people read and see the things you believe in those words, many others who read and believe in the Bible equally well do not, so to try and claim that your view is absoluteand that anyone who disagrees is not reading or following the Bible is just wrong. Neither you nor anyone else has the full truth. It is in the Bible, but since we are ALL imperfect human beings, we human beings will make errors. That is why we are to discuss things and not shout dogma.

None of us are refusing or disputing science. That would be like saying "Oxygen doesn't exist! Science is wrong!". However, we are refuting that science is the end all, be all, of Creation theories.

Problem is that for the Earth to be 12,000 years old would require disputing scientific evidence as much or more than saying "Oxeygen does not exist". And, I repeat, I have yet to find even one person who will honestly and truly debate the realities. Usually what I get are complete and utter misunderstandings of what science is supposedly saying and dismissal of evidence that exists (such as certain fossils). Any time we get close to a real issue, the young earthers come back with "you are just making different assumptions" ... but again, they never clarify what those different assumptions are.

[Symmetry]

There is many complex organisms in the body. Some of them even resemble major things in the bible (see; "The Cross of the Human Cell") (I'd post the exact link, but I'm at work and as such, don't have access to my bookmarks).

The fact that the bible predicts many future events that have come to pass is far more then mere coincedence. The rise of the Modern day Israeli states is just 1 of many events predicted in the bible.

And I don't usually drop off the internet, though I do for the weekends, I suppose.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by complex organisms in the body (organs maybe?), but the "Cross of the Human Cell" thing is just more junk science.. It refers to a protein called laminin. This is what laminin looks like:



Full Snopes article on the subject Here

It's just another example of pseudo-science being employed to "prove" religious beliefs, and you really should treat some of this stuff more critically.

[Juan_Bottom]

[joecoolfrog]

Out of interest then, what is you response to the OP's suggestion that certain symmetrical elements of the human body prove that God created us?

Or that the foundation of the modern Israeli state proves that the Bible is true?

I don't want to appear to troll with this, but whenever I ask where this information is coming from, people seem to drop off the internet. Funny that.

There is many complex organisms in the body. Some of them even resemble major things in the bible (see; "The Cross of the Human Cell") (I'd post the exact link, but I'm at work and as such, don't have access to my bookmarks).

People find many "links" in the Bible, but the key is whether this is what the Bible itself says or something that people try to paint onto text. Codexes are a prime example. Some people believe in them, but most scholars have found absolutely no real link between these "codes" and anything real. So, too with these "symetry" issues.

If its not actually IN the Bible, it must be questioned. Worse, most such things, at their root, go far from taking people toward God. Many of these things are leading to major divisions in our church today. Christ is a uniter, not a divider of God's people. Even the early church had dissention over some subjects. Why were they allowed to persist in the Bible? Probably because these are issues about which humans are allowed to disagree, about which humans in relation with God can find different answers. Christ told us "he who believes in me shall have eternal life". He did not say "he who believes in symetry, he who thinks the Earth was created in 7 days... etc.".

The fact that the bible predicts many future events that have come to pass is far more then mere coincedence. The rise of the Modern day Israeli states is just 1 of many events predicted in the bible.

I have found the very same thing. The closest I get to an answer is "read the Bible" or "you are just listening to scientists"/"rely on the wrong assumptions". I never get clarity on what those assumptions are .. no matter how much I try, whether here, elsewhere on the internet or the "real world". It is the one thing that makes me very angry. The young earthers purport to be "just wanting the alternatives examined", but refuse any real and true discussion of their ideas and the basis for what they claim are facts or disputes of science.

I find that, it's quite helpful if people are educated in the matters they discuss. As someone who has been on both sides of the argument, not being raised in Christianity, I find it quite easy to respond to both arguments. However, when and someone questions, "Where's your proof that the bible predicted this?!?", and we quote scripture, you call bullshit, even though there's this little book that predicted the events long before they happened.

I don't believe I have ever said "bullshit" to scripture. I HAVE said that while some people read and see the things you believe in those words, many others who read and believe in the Bible equally well do not, so to try and claim that your view is absoluteand that anyone who disagrees is not reading or following the Bible is just wrong. Neither you nor anyone else has the full truth. It is in the Bible, but since we are ALL imperfect human beings, we human beings will make errors. That is why we are to discuss things and not shout dogma.

None of us are refusing or disputing science. That would be like saying "Oxygen doesn't exist! Science is wrong!". However, we are refuting that science is the end all, be all, of Creation theories.

Problem is that for the Earth to be 12,000 years old would require disputing scientific evidence as much or more than saying "Oxeygen does not exist". And, I repeat, I have yet to find even one person who will honestly and truly debate the realities. Usually what I get are complete and utter misunderstandings of what science is supposedly saying and dismissal of evidence that exists (such as certain fossils). Any time we get close to a real issue, the young earthers come back with "you are just making different assumptions" ... but again, they never clarify what those different assumptions are.

Dont agree with you completely of course but very well said none the less

[john9blue]

Not Really. Here's 4 points that seem to me indisputable given the common definition of the Christian God.

1. God knows everything about everything

2. God created everything

3. Given the first two points, God knew everything there was to know about everything before he created it

4. Given the third point, God knew Satan was a bad egg

Where am I wrong there?

Well, you could say that God purposefully introduced evil into the world for reasons unknown (a.k.a. being "malevolent"). That would mean that making humans overcome evil is more good than having no evil at all for them...

Or, you could say that God really doesn't know what's going to happen, and free will is outside his realm of influence. That would make him only omnipotent and omniscient where humans are not involved (or animals, or whatever you consider free will).

You could argue that, had God not given us free will, we would never really love Him, because love has to be a choice. I think I'd prefer that if I was God.

Sim City was a joke, btw.

[Juan_Bottom]

Well, you could say that God purposefully introduced evil into the world for reasons unknown (a.k.a. being "malevolent"). That would mean that making humans overcome evil is more good than having no evil at all for them...

That would be malevolent to all beings he created. Because he knew that the Angels would "betray" him, and he knew that he would punish them. Essentialy punishing them for what he condemned them to do before he made them... The same would be said for humans and beasts. Since Adam and Eve would have been made with the knowledge that they would eat the apple.
And if it's the case for humans, then Jesus dying for our sins is unjust. We are all born with original sin which we got by Eve betraying God. But she was made to do just that.
I could go on and on. But what is evil? Sounds like God is the evil one there, not Satan.

Or, you could say that God really doesn't know what's going to happen, and free will is outside his realm of influence. That would make him only omnipotent and omniscient where humans are not involved (or animals, or whatever you consider free will).

Where Humans and Angels and Beasts are involved... since we all have free will. That puts Heaven, Hell, and Earth out of his control. .

You could argue that, had God not given us free will, we would never really love Him, because love has to be a choice. I think I'd prefer that if I was God.

That would mean that he gave everyone free will, but you can't have free will if God knows everything about everything. He could have made Eve more loyal so she wouldn't eat the apple. But he didn't. And he knew before creating her that would lead to her eating the apple.... thus there is no free will. He chose the path for her. And so, nothing he created could have free will.
And we are all condemned for that? Satan too? Nah.

[Frigidus]

Well, you could say that God purposefully introduced evil into the world for reasons unknown (a.k.a. being "malevolent"). That would mean that making humans overcome evil is more good than having no evil at all for them...

That would be malevolent to all beings he created. Because he knew that the Angels would "betray" him, and he knew that he would punish them. Essentialy punishing them for what he condemned them to do before he made them... The same would be said for humans and beasts. Since Adam and Eve would have been made with the knowledge that they would eat the apple.
And if it's the case for humans, then Jesus dying for our sins is unjust. We are all born with original sin which we got by Eve betraying God. But she was made to do just that.
I could go on and on. But what is evil? Sounds like God is the evil one there, not Satan.

Or, you could say that God really doesn't know what's going to happen, and free will is outside his realm of influence. That would make him only omnipotent and omniscient where humans are not involved (or animals, or whatever you consider free will).

Where Humans and Angels and Beasts are involved... since we all have free will. That puts Heaven, Hell, and Earth out of his control. .

You could argue that, had God not given us free will, we would never really love Him, because love has to be a choice. I think I'd prefer that if I was God.

That would mean that he gave everyone free will, but you can't have free will if God knows everything about everything. He could have made Eve more loyal so she wouldn't eat the apple. But he didn't. And he knew before creating her that would lead to her eating the apple.... thus there is no free will. He chose the path for her. And so, nothing he created could have free will.
And we are all condemned for that? Satan too? Nah.

Although I feel that I could still argue with john, I have to say that it is incredibly refreshing to find some small middle ground on this debate. He is, seriously, the first person I have met who is willing to grant that, given this world, God has some (serious, in my opinion) explaining to do about his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

[Juan_Bottom]

Although I feel that I could still argue with john, I have to say that it is incredibly refreshing to find some small middle ground on this debate. He is, seriously, the first person I have met who is willing to grant that, given this world, God has some (serious, in my opinion) explaining to do about his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

QFT
And seconded

[PLAYER57832]

Although I feel that I could still argue with john, I have to say that it is incredibly refreshing to find some small middle ground on this debate. He is, seriously, the first person I have met who is willing to grant that, given this world, God has some (serious, in my opinion) explaining to do about his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

I would say we all think he has some "serious explaining to do". It's just that we believe there are explanations. Ultimately, its that we either would be worse off or perhaps just not "us" (really human), if it were not for evil.

I definitely don't say I like thinks like the haulocaust, that my friend lost 2 teenage children in different accidents in 2 months, or any of the millions of even worse things to which human beings have been subjected. However, if you believe in God, you either believe he is inherently evil, completely uncaring OR you believe he is a loving/caring God with a purpose in mind and that, despite all what is happening is "for the best".

Its not quite like the old "this will hurt you more than me" parent's used to say a lot or even like giving kids shots/"yucky" medicine. We know that kids need reprimanding (not necessarily spanking nowadays, but reprimanding) and that medicine cures illness (mostly -- not debating that now). Its more along the lines of "should we cut off this leg, treat the cancer with drugs or do nothing and just wait? ". Any choice is bad. They key is to pick the best of the worst options. Even the best doctor does not necessarily know all the answers. God, of course, does. Yet, given limited choices (that he perhaps set up for reasons we also don't understand), there are only so many options.

In the free will issue, logically, if God made us so that we would not choose evil, then he would have made us more robots or animals than humans. If he made us to be evil, then, too, we are mere robots. Instead, God gave us a choice... gives all of us a chioce. That means that some of us endure results of bad things other people do, it means some benefit from good things. I cannot begin to understand how, with logic, this could happen. I just believe it did.

[jesterhawk]

The parent/child analogy is close too. A parent brings a child into the world, and tries to keep them from being evil...but still sometimes that child still does do evil things. Is it the parents fault? Sometimes, and to varying degrees, but sometimes its really the childs responsibility completely. He had all the info he needed, and all the guidance, and all the warnings, and still chose to follow the path of evil...

Obviously in this case the parent wasnt omnipotent, and couldnt force the child to be good...but if they could do that, they would have removed free will...

again, thats the argument for it anyways. If you choose to believe in a higher power, arguments like these are pretty mundane actually. Compared to there is a God/there isnt the side discussions really go no where. Only enmasse do the two sides of the equation start to take shape, and give the person a body of evidence to consider when making the choice...or...choosing subconsciously, which I presume happens just as often.

This makes zero sense when applied to angels. Angels were made directly by God, the same as Adam and Eve. God shaped their personalities his self/herself. They didn't get a lifetime of experiences to shape their humanity, God made them exactly the way they were. God would have made the Devil "evil" and then punished him for it. Huge hole in religious logic... thus proving them double stupid?

Only if you believe that God created angelic beings without any freedom of choice and that they were bound and forced, or created, to only serve God without deviation. However, the Bible points out that one angel did and was allowed to make a choice thus showing us that angels are not merely mindless servants, but beings with freedom to choose. The main difference between angels and humans is that we are not in the presence of God in heaven when we make our choice.

JH

Huh- that's quite interesting. Christian teaching traditionally ascribes free will only to humans, and not to angels. I'm guessing that you've been looking at Aquinas for some of this, but it'd be interesting to know what denomination you follow. The traditional Catholic hierarchy ascribes free will to humans specifically as the difference between human and angelic beings. Protestantism tends to ignore angels except as an aspect of God in the form of the Holy Ghost. Still, there're lots of sects and churches.

It's kind of interesting that you suggest that humans are not in the presence of God in heaven though. I'm guessing that you're making a distinction between God on earth and God in heaven. That's a fairly provocative distinction.

I am a non-denominational. However, that said, it is almost like a denomination in that I am part of a church that is affiliated with the Spoken Word ministries (like Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, etc). Although these churches are mostly non-denominational, they tend to band together.

And I agree with what you said about churches teachings on angels. And I actually have not read Aquinas. I just have gotten this idea through studying the Bible and the greek and hebrew behind the words. When I had what I thought was some information I shared it with my elders and they looked over what I was saying and have come to believe the same thing (about angels having the ability to choose, or free will). So did Aquinas teach something on this?

Only if you believe that God created angelic beings without any freedom of choice and that they were bound and forced, or created, to only serve God without deviation.

I'm not talking about being servants. I'm saying it's a logical impossibility that an omnipresent being who knows everything about everything can create a conscious mind directly without knowing what that mind will think up... and thus God would have known before he even considered making Lucifer what he would do.

Granted, but look at us for example and perhaps see why God would create such a being. We, humans, have a conscious mind and freedom to choose to do whatever we want. We can choose good or bad. We can choose to eat that dozen donuts that will not do good for my waist line or eat a healthy fruit snack. I can choose to kill someone or I can choose to bless someone. And I can choose to rebel against God and convince everyone I know to do the same or I can serve God. And each of these examples have a range of other choices as well, but for illustration I just chose these.

Now since we have the ability to choose evil and many do, should God not have created humanity? Or perhaps God did because he hoped that we would choose good and not evil. Does he know everything, yes, but that does not mean that he wouldn't have created us because there are many who will choose to do good and choose to love God back for all he has done for us.

Does that mean that God is malevolent? No, it means that God IS love and love hopes all things (like the best in everyone to do good) and bears all things (like wrongs suffered against him including the rebellion in heaven) and never fails (because God will always be). In the end, God created the angels and one turned bad and then he convince a third of all the angels to side with him.

Should God have not created the angels because of the choice of the minority? No.

Expand that to humanity, should God have not created us because some (whatever percentage) will choose to murder, rape, etc? No. And if you want to say that God should have only allowed the "good" people to be created, then where is the line? God says that even lying is wrong and most of us have done that. God even says that not following your parents commands and being disobedient is wrong and who among us has not done that at least once. So, where is the line where we say that this one is good enough but this one is not. Because God's standard is perfection and complete following of all his laws without wavering. But he knew we couldn't do that and that is why Jesus came and the Holy Spirit is sent to empower us to always do good.

So, is God malevolent because you exist even though you have done things that in his eyes would be considered evil? Should you have not been created because perhaps your biggest sin is that you were a bit rebellious to your parents when you were a teen or perhaps you told a few white lies? I am sure you would answer no. Yet, you then complain that God didn't destroy a creation of his because YOU find his sins unacceptable. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Just food for thought not condemning anyone.

It's like Sim City. Haven't you ever started a fire in your city, or randomly demolished buildings, or somehow fucked things up for the fun of it, and watched people panic, because it would be boring otherwise? To see if your city could still make it? That's what God was thinking when he made Lucifer: "this ought to be interesting".

No. He created lucifer because he loved him and the way he created him. After all the Bible says that lucifer, "You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty" and "You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you." Think of this like a parent speaking to his wayward son, "You were great, wise, and perfect in beauty. You had it all and yet you threw it away." If you like another albeit bizarre example, think of the way Obiwan spoke to Anakin after he cut his arms and legs off, "You were the chosen one!! It was said that you would destroy the Sith not join them! Bring balance to the Force not leave it at darkness. ... You were my brother Anakin, I loved you!" It is the same kind of situation with God and lucifer. He loved him and he created him for something completely different then what he chose to do. The fact that he turned from that was not for entertainment. He was created for love and he betrayed that love. And then God out of love did not destroy him just like for love he doesn't destroy us when we disobey.

Most of the believers have grown up in a faith and decided after some thought to accept it.
Most of the non-believers have examined their parents' faith and decided it is nonsense. I guess there might be some who were brought up as atheists, but mostly this is a personal decision and goes against one's training.

I don't think these facts are right. As a mere measure, I know a lot of Christians and only about half of them grew up in faith. Out of the rest about a third had atheist or agnostic parents and they turned from it. In fact, I know a lot of Christians whose family will not speak to them because of their decision to become a Christian. So, I am not sure about your facts.

As for the assertion that most atheists have rejected their parents views, I only know (personally not counting here) two atheists and one was brought up in faith and rejected it. The second was a child of atheists and have followed their parents lead. So, I can't really say if your statement is true or not.




Man, I log in a couple times a day and wow does this thread grow from one log in to the next.

Love in Christ,
JH