Tests of Faith

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Oxygen, Oct 1, 2001.

  1. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    Why would an all-knowing god need to test peoples' faith? Wouldn't such a being already know how faithful a person is? Do "tests of faith" demonstrate that god is not all-knowing, or do they merely represent god's insecurities, such as when a wife or girlfriend needs to here their significant other say "I love you", even though such feelings are already displayed in so many other ways? If god does this simply so that we might know our own faiths, then he must surely take cruel delight in torturing us so that we learn something we already know.

    So, is god not all-knowing after all? Is god merely a pesky girlfriend? Or is god a sadistic entity who needs a bit of taking down?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    Since when do teachers give tests for their own benefit?

    If a teacher knows a student will fail the test but gives it to them anyway, is it the teacher's fault they fail?

    If a teacher knows a student will pass a test but gives it to them anyway, is it the teacher's ego that makes then give them the test anyway?

    Did you write this post because you didn't know the answer or because you hoped we wouldn't?

    Keep trying and maybe you'll hit something.

    Ben
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    So in other words, KalvinB, you don't have a clue?

    Maybe if you give it a try, you'll have something to offer the discussion. It's not impossible; I know this because I've seen you construct a coherent paragraph. But isn't that pretty much what you said to Godless? Seems a pretty standard deflection for you, eh?
    Pardon me, Oxygen, if I cut the citation short; it just seemed pointless to c&p the whole thing merely to agree with you ... I've asserted that much of redemptive faith is fraudulent, so I'm not of much help to you here aside from the affirmation.

    We could say that the Bible describes representative functions of God in that it asserts certain processes of God and certain facets of His nature. This works well enough, but leaves the Bible functionally mythological, and that just seems unacceptable to Christians despite its apparent wisdom.

    I personally think the idea of the "test of faith" is a human invention, brought on to dispel the notion that God had, in some way, rejected a person through the assignation of misfortune. Instead of feeling that God punished you by causing to lose your house for your sins (say, cheating on your taxes), one can say that God is "testing your faith", and thus feel better about your station in the order. It seems consistent; much of what I decry among modern parents is a reconstruction of God's inflexibility. The assumption of sin from birth: I understand the idea of conditioning a child against harm, but there's such a thing as Pavlovian overkill. Watching people with children is often like watching an impatient person with a mewing cat. They get cross, as if it matters to the cat. They raise their voices at young children, as if the child understands the context. What they understand is anger. Was it more apparent that your parents were angry or what they were angry about?

    In this sense, then, we should consider whether the parental similarity is drawn before or after the invention of this God: it might be that modern parents use the God-relationship as a role model to raising children; let us hope not, or many children will be killed for their transgressions. But it could also be an early, cathartic mosaic of parental sentiment, the invention of a seemingly capricious, well-intended, somewhat mysterious parent-figure.

    Do any of us find it strange that the seeming insecurities of God are so strikingly similar to known human insecurities?

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bev123! Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Faith is only realized when it is acted upon. Because God is out of time, He sees "acted-upon" faith WHEN it is acted upon. (See thread response below). Therefore, faith isn't faith until it is acted upon, and God, remember is seeing out of time. When Abraham was tested by God to see if he would put God's will above his great love for Isaac, Abraham had to actually go through the experience for his faith to be realized.

    (From thread, "Free Will, or is it pre-planned?"
    Illustration of how free will exists.
    A very useful illustration of how free will and God's omniscience exist in complete harmony:

    PICTURE: A piece of notebook paper lying on a table. On it is drawn a line extending along the length of the paper that represents all of human history. From the beginning of man's existence all the way to the end, is recorded every single event that has ever and will ever happen.

    Now picture God is OUT OF TIME, looking down at the line in His Eternal Present. He sees the very first human, at the same time he is seeing me type this word. He sees everything from the beginning of our idea of time to the end of time at the same instant because He is out of time.

    He knows what you are doing at this moment since the beginning of time, but only while you are doing it, and not one moment before!

    The problem is when we think of God looking down the corridors of time as if He is in time itself!

    What appears to be a complete contradiction is very understandable from the perspective of God's eternal Present
    Because He sees us above our timeline, we then have the free will to determine our choices, while at the same time being forever known by God.
     
  8. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    Sorry if you couldn't understand the point of a series of questions.

    Teachers don't give tests to satisfy their own ego. Either does God. If you can't understand that then no wonder you think God testing us has something to do with His ego.

    Ben
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The point is beside the point

    The analogy you've constructed is inadequate for it merely demonstrates the nature of the question.

    * By using human models in the analogy, you are considering human motivations.
    * But such is the nature of the question at hand, an attempt to explain God's motives in human terms.

    Thus, you've done nothing to address the question except defend God using human standards.

    It's not a matter of not understanding you, KalvinB, but of understanding that your reply makes little or no progress toward the solution, and seems to exist for your litanous maybe you'll hit something.

    Your failure to understand the nature of the question speaks much of the "Christian intellectual" position. Come on ... with such empathy that the mighty bless the meek, and you can't understand the nature of the question? Looks like that faith has hamstrung your sense of empathy.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    So I suppose God shouldn't talk either because that's human like. Jesus must have been as fallible as humans as well because he certainly acted like one.

    We were created in the image of God so one would expect that we both do and are capable of imitating God in various ways.

    It's not a valid argument against Christianity no matter how you look at it.

    Ben
     
  11. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    So many posts in such a short time, I must have asked a good question!

    To answer your original question, Kalvin, as to why I asked why, it was a thought that popped through my head while diagnosing a problem with my computer. I have found that my subconscious is most active on deeper subjects when I am entangled in a mundane puzzle. It wasn't that I found my computer's problem particularly difficult, as though it was a test of faith or anything. It was a question that I had yet to see answered. I never ask a question with the intention of laughing at anyone (although I can and do set traps with loaded questions when I am trying to prove a point). When I pondered this question, it led me back to an earlier discussion on another board;

    Why does God insist that we have absolute faith in Him, while He seems to have little or no faith in us?

    This, in turn, led me to yet an earlier question that a hippy teacher of mine from Santa Cruz High School asked while demonstrating the art of critical thinking;

    Why did God create man? If God had a need to create man, then the presence of need reflects imperfection. Imperfection reflects that God is not omnipotent. A diety that is not omnipotent is no more worth worshipping than any of us other flawed entities. If God didn't have a need to create man but did anyway, then our existence is pointless. To have been created for the sake of creating something, we are little more than a whim and stand nothing to gain or lose by believing or not believing, and therefore it doesn't matter.

    I have many more questions that I would like to ask, but I don't want to hog the board. I'll ask others later when it's appropriate.
     
  12. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    Who says absolute faith is necessary? Few if any have absolute faith.

    God created us because he WANTED (not needed) someone to share his glory with.

    Believeing he exists means little. The devil knows he exists. You have to believe in him as in trust him and not doubt his judgement. People who don't believe in the Christian God often try to point out he's flawed in some way. "What kind of God would kill children?" That's the real objection. Not that he doesn't exist.

    Since God just wanted something to share His glory with He's not obligated to share it with everyone. If you reject Him for whatever reason he'll reject you.

    Ben
     
  13. Bev123! Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Oxygen, that's like saying, "Why does a man and wife have a child? It must mean they either "need" the child, or the child has no value at all. And Ben brought up a very good point, that because humans are made in God's image, we do have some of the same characteristics as Him, the ability to love and give love back, and a desire to express that love by creating loveable objects.

    And also, alot of us assume that God has an ego problem because He wants demonstrations of faith. Because of who God IS, He, similar to the very best parent, wants His children to depend on the only Person who will give them ultimate satisfaction, joy, safety, and health. I think that demonstrates Love, not a "pesky girlfriend's" ego problem. Nearly all of human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - is the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.

    It will never work for this reason. God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is made to run on gasoline, and it would not run correctly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why trying to find happiness and peace apart from Him never works, because it is not there.

    The most important thing in each person's life is His response to our Creator God, the Lord of the universe. Just because He has given us the ability, in our small ignorant pridefulness to not choose Him, doesn't mean that the consequences are not extremely dire (fearsome, frightening, horrendous).
     
  14. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    If God merely wanted someone to share his glory with, then we are created on a whim. What happens when He no longer wants to share his glory?

    BevKay (That name has a familiar ring to it. Did you ever live in Prescott or Mayer, Arizona?) I don't think the creation of man can compare to the invention of the automobile. The automobile was invented for a purpose; rapid transportation. What is man's purpose? As far as why a man marries and raises a child, it's biological engineering to ensure the survival of the species. Why the species must survive is sort of near the root of my question.
     
  15. Rambler Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    509
    Ahh BevKay

    You cannot make all these assertions without addressing some points which are always brought up on these forums:

    If god is equal to the most loving parent why did he set he's creation up to fall??? why are we to consider ourselves as sinners right from day dot?? I say its because the theology of christianity is nothing more then a vain attempt by a powerful "church" to control its subject, its a political tool and always has been. There is nothing "holy" or sacrade about christianity.... May I also point out that truely loving parents do not teach their children love by inspiring fear in them, i.e. a truely loving parent does not say "love me" and only me or be tortured in hell for all time!!!!

    Further you wrote:
    "Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why trying to find happiness and peace apart from Him never works, because it is not there. "

    I take it from the above that you are of the opinion that only christains can know happiness??? I was christain until I realised that the very thing you refer to as fuel for the soul was nothing more then a potent poison for my very existance. I am yet to see any good that can be attributed to christianity alone....If you strip christianity of all its non-sense what are you left with....morality???, justice??? I tend to think that the only thing that remains is just the common social thread...skills needed by a social animal to survive in its social group...nothing more and certainly nothing holy!!
     
  16. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    "Set up to fall"

    I suppose you think God should just eliminate anything that might tempt us. You sound like those people at CAP. I suppose you think God set Satan up too because Satan desired to be greater than God. If God just hadn't existed or if God let anyone be greater than Him we wouldn't have sin.

    I didn't think it was that hard to understand...maybe it is, I dunno.

    "What happens when he no longer wants to share His Glory?"

    He's God, he does what he wants. If it is a just thing to do he can do it. If it's unjust he cannot do it.

    Oh there you go. "God's not all powerful cause he can't sin!"

    Ben
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    God's ego?

    Talk? No. How big is God's mouth? To be a little more serious, communicate is fair, but to reduce God to simple, human interactions is an interpretive device employed not only by Biblical faiths but by others. To be specific about it:

    * If a teacher knows a student will fail the test but gives it to them anyway, is it the teacher's fault they fail?

    Depends on a couple of factors; generally, however, the teacher's portion of the failure is the most visible. But a failing student is the fault of the student, the parents, the teacher, and the larger school system.

    What makes it a bad comparison is its nature. But consider this: God, as a teacher, is "teaching" something He made. Furthermore, this something he made (humankind) will fail His test and He knows it. This lack of coincidence 'twixt the intent and the result is no big deal in and of itself. However, God chooses to punish the "student", and there we must examine God's motives. To punish someone for behaving according to plan is more than a little stupid.

    According to plan? Well, it isn't just that God knows in advance, but that He chose to go forward with the plan. That is, knowing that humanity would fail the test, He chose to go forward with the plan. The need for redemption is something that only God understands, and the failure of the test is also the rejection of that redemption that is only necessary because God chose to go forward knowing that the product did not meet His specificatons. Unlike the schoolteacher, the inherent failure of the student is something God has to figure out. Imagine that: conception, gestation, and then boom--out of the womb and already in debt.

    But the schoolteacher might look to why the student is unprepared: family, former teachers, perhaps even the present teacher. With the knowledge and power of God, there is nobody to blame but God Himself. So yes, the achievements and failures of humanity are squarely on His shoulders.
    So you're saying that every teacher knows, before issuing the test, how each student is going to perform?
    There are religious assertions out there which say exactly that. Take a deity that doesn't claim so much as your God: sure, the goddess I describe talks, dances, smiles, laughs, cries, and does all sorts of human things; this is because I know her origin is with the living--she is a human invention with fairly specific purposes. I hold that all gods are human inventions; it seems only logical to me that an anthropomorphic godhead should reflect certain human limitations; Christians wish for their god-image to transcend those limitations, yet seem to rely on them, as you have, for examples justifying their faith.
    Books have been banned and arsons threatened (bombings, specifically) because of this very idea, and this is merely during my lifetime. It's part of the problem of Christian faith.

    Catholics hold that there is a heresy called docetism; a docetist holds that Jesus was not fully human. The basis of the accusation of heresy arises from the conclusion that if Jesus was more than human then the passion and death and resurrection take on a different meaning because Jesus then did not suffer as a human suffers. Humans are fallible, and born into sin. Sure, Jesus was supposedly pure, but the man must necessarily be fallible because he was a human being. For contrast, I believe it was Athanasius who provided strong arguments for the nature of the Holy Spirit when Nicaea concretized the Trinity and composed its creed. Incidentally, Athanasius argued a docetist perspective. I'll dig up the text on that somewhere (Pagels or Armstrong), but the point is that whether you're Catholic or not, if Jesus could transcend his suffering it seems to reduce his sacrifice. Jesus must necessarily be human for his contribution to the covenant to be genuine; as a human being, he must necessarily be fallible.
    Metaphysically I would agree that we are made in god's image, but I'm pretty sure the word "god" means two utterly different things in that comparison. Since it was a human who said that imitation is the sincerest of flattery, I'm inclined to find abstract fault with that motivation of imitation.

    The question then becomes why we "imitate" those things we attribute to God. To appease Him and beg His favor? Perhaps, but as I frequently refer to the redemptive scheme as a racket, it would seem the arbitrariness of this form of imitation would support notions of God's overactive egotism.

    Do we, then, imitate our attributions of God because it is higher wisdom? What should that wisdom lead to? This is a fairly broad question; on the one hand, a common interfaith assertion is that God's wisdom is found in His instructions for living well. Right living in this case should encourage harmony and prosperity. Unfortunately we see this is not true; Christianity is divisive, affects people of all economic strata, and justifies all manner of immorality. Is this the fault of the religion? Perhaps in execution, perhaps in theory.

    On the one hand, faulty humanity is bound to bungle its instructions from time to time at the very least; we see many Christians executing their faith "wrong". The measure of "wrong" here has to do with a comparison of what is advertised versus what is experienced. Love, compassion, and forgiveness, if we view the social body of Christianity, are rhetorically paramount. Even to survey Sciforums' Christians, however, produces a different result. God's love, compassion, and forgiveness take on "non-human" definitions; while this is not necessarily inappropriate, one must consider what God intended, then, by awarding us a mission the terms of which require a definition outside our vernacular. Love is not the place of fire reserved for the Devil and His angels; compassion is not to cause suffering; forgiveness is not condemnation. Yet Christians assert all manner of oddities on this point: God creates us in sin, yet punishes us for the state of our creation, but it's an act of love?

    If the theory is bad--that is, if the Christian instruction is incorrect compared to its goals--then there is nothing poor humanity can do to redeem itself in the eyes of God.
    I was wondering if I could compel you to expound some on the gray areas of faith and what it weighs in the eyes of God.
    Wanted to share .... I would like to share this candy bar with you because I love you; first, however, you have to pay me homage by obeying my rules and honoring me with your prayers. Then and only then will I share my candy bar with you.

    My company would like to share the fruit of its labors with you. If you come to the office every day and do what I tell you, then I will share the profits with you.
    What, then, as history shows, when one believes in His judgement and still gets it wrong? Oh, yeah ... the Inquisitors went to heaven because they thought they were doing His will when they raped and tortured and murdered ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The point is that people think they "trust" his judgement; if you disagree with their opinion, then you're wrong, apparently. Look at the way Tony1 treats his fellow Christians here at Sciforums.
    Such a simplification of the argument is inevitable. It isn't just that God kills children, but that He does it for seemingly egotistical reasons. The Amelekites are an issue that's never been properly answered by a person of faith here at Sciforums. The Lord commandeth, Thou shall not kill. It seems many in history have chosen to imitate His example and kill wrathfully in His name. It comes from trusting His method, not questioning His judgement, and then trying to imitate His example. Perhaps God has a reason for killing this child; the Lord needs to express it lest the imperfect humans misinterpret and invoke His name to justify sin. However, to look to the Amelekites again, we see motivation to be largely pride.

    Tests of faith? I'm convinced the whole test of faith idea is a human invention. Perhaps they have literary precedent in the Bible, but testing of faith generally seems to be a human excuse.

    * Why did the earthquake happen? The Lord works in mysterious ways.
    * Why did Daddy sleep with a stripper? The Lord tested his faith, and Daddy failed.
    * Why did the plane crash into the building and kill Daddy? Trust in the Lord, my child.

    Tests of faith seem to be either self-reinforcement or else a diversionary excuse: one marks a test of one's own faith in order to bolster said faith; one advises another of a test of the other's faith in order to answer the unanswerable question. No test of faith brings real comfort; it only brings more issues to resolve and makes the faith more complex, less fulfilling, and exacting enough that it can be held to be wrong. Ask Sir Loone or Jerry Falwell about tests of faith; remember, God had the Muslim fanatics crash the plane into the WTC because He wanted to test our faith and remind us of our sinful ways.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They don't accomplish much, these tests of faith; in fact, despite my claims of the anemia of notions of the Devil, tests of faith seem to be the Devil's work: they distract the faithful; they bolster the ego through a false sense of triumph (for, after all, we cannot know God's thoughts, and must merely assert that He is testing a person); and they usually cause some form of unnecessary human harm. Tests of faith seem a ridiculous idea; if the Lord wants to know how we will react ... well, He should already. But then again, even God's knowledge isn't big enough for His needs, perhaps?

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    What do you say to someone who WANTS something that he doesn't NEED?

    I can only think of three:

    1. Greedy - picking up more gold he can carry
    2. Having a hobby - collecting stamps
    3. Showing off - bend a steel pipe with bear hands

    If you look deep, all these WANTS have needs backing them up.

    1. Greedy - the need to possess/own stuff
    2. Hobby - the need to distract from normal boring life
    3. Show off - the need to proof to himself or to the others

    Now what do you think about a God that WANTS something that he doesn't NEED?
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2001
  19. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    What part of "don't eat the tree or you'll die" was so hard to understand?

    What do works have to do with salvation?

    What's with the Amelekites?

    Name a prophet in the OT that killed people without first showing a miracle to the soon to be dead people and who didn't prove that God was indeed behind it?

    I.e. Inquisitors in hell. What's the issue? They didn't prove their authority. They murdered in the name of God. How do you confuse that with genuine prophets (which they were acting falsely as)?

    If you read the OT on prophets cases like this are black and white.

    Ben
     
  20. Bev123! Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Rambler Re: Ahh BevKay

    I believe that God set things up for the highest good to be able to be done. In allowing for the possibility for highest good, there has to be a potential for equal evil to occur. You cannot have one without the other. He did give us a free will which allowed for that possibility.
    God made man and woman perfect, but with the ability to choose between good and evil.
    Humans are considered sinners because of the sin that occurred in the Garden of Eden. That sin nature was passed down from generation to generation like cancer cells morally or the AIDs virus, and we are partners in the fall. The world is not the way God originally created it. When evil was introduced into the world, all of creation was affected.

    When people say that bad behavior comes from environment or education, they are not seeing reality. One cookie and two 9 month old kids illustrate the reality of the fall. Or some 30+ year olds with a large sum of money and the reading of a will. When the fall occurred, there came a flow, with greater and greater magnitude of evil as the earth's population grew. So that instead of 2 people who were selfish, now there are millions.

    You are confused about what Christianity is when you talk about a "powerful church" controlling through theology. I'm certainly not saying that there hasn't been a great deal done by certain church leaders throughout history that have taken advantage of this power and used it for selfish motives. But this has nothing to do with real Christianity. A "powerful church" doesn't control me. My belief is based on my relationship, one-on-one with the Living Lord, Jesus Christ. No one is coercing me outside of my choosing to submit my will to the Almighty Creator of all things. I think that is a pretty safe substitute -- my imperfect, very weak will, for His Perfect, All-loving, All-Powerful will. Christianity is based solely on who Christ is, a perfect, yet real human man who lived here, gave His life on the cross, and rose from death to eternal life and is living and present now.

    The church's stance on theology doesn't change God's Reality one tiny bit.

    There is everything holy and sacred about Christianity. God became flesh. God, the Holiest and most Perfect Being, beyond our capacity to imagine, who could not be looked upon fully because men's eyes are not able to withstand looking at the glory of Someone so holy and perfect as God.

    God says in His word to men, "Fear not." God wants humans to recognize His love for them, and to want to run to Him. But I believe that truly loving parents who want their children safe and alive will most certainly warn them of deadly dangers or they would not be truly loving.


    If God is present in Heaven, and wherever He is not present is hell, (and that truly is the definition of hell, where God is not), then in a real sense, choosing to be with God is choosing heaven, and choosing not to be with God is choosing hell. God is not sending you to hell. You are choosing hell when you refuse to choose God as your Lord - whose will is to be submitted to - and your Saviour (saved of course from not being in God's presence = Hell)



    I believe that only Christians can know ultimate happiness. I believe a lot of non-Christians have a greater joy of living than many Christians. But that is because so many Christians are not living lives that God can bless. One fruit of God's Spirit is joy. You also have to realize a WHOLE lot of people are nominal Christians - in name only. They are actually not Christians at all. That's one reason why so many people on this forum have such a skewed belief in Christianity. If everyone truly reflected Jesus the way He actually was, this would revolutionize the faith.

    You have left a Living, Life-giving, Loving, All-Powerful, Creating, Up-holding Person
     
  21. Rambler Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    509
    BevKey

    First the garden of Eden,

    As has been said time and time again on these forums if you take the garden of eden as a credible story of the fall of man (in gods eyes) then you must also accept one of several other possibilties:

    1) God intended the fall, else evil would have no place in the garden

    2) God intended the fall, else Adam and Eve would have been better aware of the consequences of their actions. Lets not ignore that these supposed people were experiencing everything for the first time...including the consequences of wrong doing...how would you view a parent that throws his/her child out forever just because that child played with a gift from said parent....but its even more vindictive...not only is the child thrown out but its offspring is forever branded guilty. I.e. would you give a child a loaded gun, and then blame the child for killing itself with your gift, and then punish all your other children because of YOUR mistake??

    3) God is NOT perfect, else his "perfect" creation would not be able to committ imperfect acts (otherwise it ain't perfect).

    4) God intended the fall, else there would be NO tree of life or temptations which would cause such an event (loaded gun again)

    5) God is VAIN!!!!, created us to massage his ego, and indeed the garden of eden set that duty for us in "stone" so to speak.

    6) God is Omni-everything, and hence knew exactly what would happen, hence no free will, all was and is as per his design, hence we are created to stroke an insecure gods ego...hardly perfect now ha?


    and so on and so on.....


    further you wrote:
    "A "powerful church" doesn't control me"

    really??? and where do you think the nonsense you subscibe to came from??? saying its from God is only acceptable if you also agree that God is a "boob" or a tyrant, 'cause the bible is either a badly written myth or the work of a phycho.

    MOVING ON:
    "Christianity is based solely on who Christ is, a perfect, yet real human man who lived here, gave His life on the cross, and rose from death to eternal life and is living and present now. "

    REA!!!L WAS HE?? a real person who did as much a jeBus (not a typo, I think Homer simpson had it right) is claimed to have done, would have been written about by others (i.e. non-christains), why is it that there is no non-christain evidence of such a man??? Now on the giving his life on the cross stuff: an imortal son of a God would have nothing to fear in death...so where is the sacrifice???


    "There is everything holy and sacred about Christianity. God became flesh. God, the Holiest and most Perfect Being, beyond our capacity to imagine, who could not be looked upon fully because men's eyes are not able to withstand looking at the glory of Someone so holy and perfect as God. "

    Now that's funny, a perfect being as descibed above would not have let the Garden of Eden happen, shit I'm just a human like everyone else I can see the flaws...so where's the perfection??? Also perfect beings don't need to go around committing acts of genocide just to get an ego trip....your God is said to have done just that...it's all over the bible.

    "God says in His word to men, "Fear not." God wants humans to recognize His love for them, and to want to run to Him. But I believe that truly loving parents who want their children safe and alive will most certainly warn them of deadly dangers or they would not be truly loving. "

    lets get that in context a loving parent doesn't kill their kids because that parent believes his/her kids aren't stroking said parents ego enough.

    "I believe that only Christians can know ultimate happiness"

    And you base this on one contradictory, badly written book. There is not one tangible bit of proof to confirm what you say...

    I love Star Wars, but that doesn't mean I base my life on the teachings of the Jedi, I can recognise a story when I see one. Why oh why are you people so gullible, again I have to reaffirm that its a result of fear!!! let your fear go and you'll be a bigger person for it.

    So as I see it (in a nutshell) christians devote their lives to a non-existant ego maniac, thereby allowing themselves to be influenced and controled by those who claim to have authority on the subject (i.e. church)....really I think it's even more ridiculous then that but I'm getting a headache (bad one) and can't be bothered to re-type this whole thing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2001
  22. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    You're really stuck on this perfect being creating imperfect creatures thing aren't you?

    Cause as I recall...we've already been over this havn't we?

    Not that you'd remember. It been the same accusations over and over and see look over and over.

    I'm tired. Are you tired? It's like argueing with a brick wall.

    If you're going to continue bringing up the same points at least bring up why you weren't satisfied with our previous answers.

    Otherwise I just assume you're not really listening so why talk?

    We already know God makes both perfection and imperfection. Your definition of a perfect being is FUBAR. Get over it and get a new argument.

    "ego trip"
    Where do you come up with this crap? Seriously. It's like you can't take an earthly concept (the judicial system) and envision as perfect in God's hands where not one innocent is punished and not one guilty is let free.

    I'm sure judges only punish people so they can get an ego trip as well.

    You sure have a lot of words for someone who has nothing to say.

    Ben
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2001
  23. Rambler Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    509
    Piss off Kalvin

    I am repeating my accusations because your explanations were CRAP!!! and didn't explain any of it away!!! all you ever do is stamp your feet and insist your right....that doesn't make you right!!! beside I left the forum for a couple of weeks and didn't get a chance to respond, by the time I got back the conversation had moved on (and still the accusations remain).

    Like arguing with a brick wall...I would think that would be ideal for you, brick walls don't answer back, brick walls always argue on your terms...brick wall!! you wish. Do yourself a favour and find a wall willing to listen, I have come to accept that the Jebus babble you post here is a result of a confused and scared little mind, you can stop wasting your time trying to convince me otherwise.

    I suggest you find out what perfect means. How does a perfect being know imperfection??? where is the benchmark??? who set the standard?? your explaination is no explaination at all its a misunderstanding of the word perfect.
     

Share This Page