"Uh oh." you said as you read the thread title and author handle, anxious to click and see what was inside.

So I was thinking today, how about a new topic for debate besides politics and the political climate? We haven't touched on religion in CL in over a year, and religion is always a timeless debate :). So basically write down any thoughts you have about religion, God, and faith.


I'll start off with a favorite proof of mine by Epicurus...

- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
- Is He able to prevent evil , but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
- Is He both able and willing to prevent evil? Then whence cometh evil?
- Is He neither able nor willing to prevent evil? Then why call Him God?


* In theology, the western theistic God is assumed to have three main powers that makes Him divine: God is (1) all knowing, (2) all powerful, (3) all good. And thus, based on the Argument of Evil, a God does not exist because God is the creator of man and man possesses evil.

If God created man in his likeness, and God is all good, then by default, man should be all good as well. It is impossible for an all good God to create evil when he does not possess evil in any fabric of his being.

If God is all powerful, then he can vanquish all evil from this system at any time. A God of omnipotence can control everything and there is no such condition as overwhelming force, especially in evil.

If God is all knowing, he knows when and where evil exists at the birth of its existance. If God is all good and all powerful, then He possesses every trait necessary to eliminate evil from this universe.

Some argue that God allows evil to exist so that we humans may have free will. However, I do not believe evil is a prerequisite to freedom of will. If that were true, then the theistic "heaven", described as a utopia, would actually be a hell since it is devoid of evil, it would be devoid of free choice. But because we don't consider "heaven" and "utopia" to be hells, then we shouldn't consider evil to be a condition of free will. Evil, after all, is not the only alternative choice to righteousness. If we never possessed the ability of evil, if evil was not even a known concept to humankind, we can still be free of will. After all, we do not possess the ability to time travel, teleport, fly, or stop and start our hearts with a thought, yet with all these limitations we are still considered free of will.

Your thoughts?

Actually, I think it is the other way around. God gave us free-will and presents us with temptations (evil) so we could exercise our free-will, i.e., whether we choose/attempt to live by the word of God or not. One of the basis of the Bible is that we are sinners and we have the choice to change this. Evil is not a prerequisite of free-will, it is a choice made while exercising free-will.

As stated, Heaven does not have evil. There is still free-will though, just like Lucifer who was in Heaven
and he chose evil so he was "kicked out". If there was no free-will in Heaven, then Lucifer could not have chosen evil.

God did make us in his image, but of course he didn't give us all of His powers, so the argument that we must be good because God is good does not hold true. If he created us exactly as Himself (including the good and the desire to follow Him), then we would not have our own free-will to choose whether or not to follow God. Additionally, we would not be sinners (as it is assumed we are in the Bible) and this is contradiction to God's nature.

Of course all these arguments assume there is a god, but that's another issue.

The key point here is that God is all good. An all good God does not possess the capability of evil. Creating a creature---such as man---with evil intents is a form of evil in itself. Tempting a man---who has evil built into his nature---towards the evil path, is also a form of evil. If God is all good, that means his nature is 100% pure and 0% evil. An all good God could not even fathom the concept of evil if he were all good. Doesn't the Biblical God also claim to love all His creations and love mankind? If that were the case, why would an all good all loving God create a man with weakness of willpower and present him with evil temptations? That is not the characteristic of an all good, all powerful, all knowing God.


" I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own-a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble minds harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature. "

- Albert Einstein

Well, God is all good and does have the capability to create evil, but that does not necessarily make him evil. If God was not a god, than he would not be able to create anything he wants such as evil. Since he is a god, he can and did create evil.

But, does creating evil make him evil? If God gave us evil to confront and willpower (weakness?) to choose whether to be evil, then he as actually doing good because he is giving us a choice (you stated that heaven without free-will is evil). This is also a sign of love because he gives us the ability to chose. If he denied us free-will, then we would be his slaves and it is not good to make us slaves (another sign of his "goodness").

On the issue regarding the existence of a god, I've pondered this too. For example, I remember reading about our primative cultures where we believed the gods caused the rain to fall, the earth to shake, or to cause disease and death. I thought that these people obviously did not have the capacity to understand how things work, so they used a belief in a god to explain the things they didn't understand.

I've heard people in bad situations tell me that they prayed to God and eventually some good was brought to their life. Coincidence? What a person deems to be a good situation depends on how they see things, similar to the glass is half full/empty scenario. Maybe they just changed their perceptions, maybe God did do something. Who knows?

And what if you were born on an island such as Borneo and have never had any exposure to Jesus? Since they do not know of him, how could they accept Him and gain entry into Heaven? Were these people born damned? It's been argued that they are equivelant to babies who die before they can understand the concept of god, and hence would not have had the chance to exercise their free-will so they are permitted into Heaven by "default".

This is a personal decision. It all comes down to what you believe, but of course you should make an informed decision and I'm not going to prejudge anyone or tell them what they should believe in. It pisses me off when people do this.

An all good God would not create anything evil. That goes against the very definition of being all good.

Let's say for the sake of argument that evil is allowed to exist in God's creation. Why then would the God make evil an inclination in His creation instead of just a dormant possibility? And why then would God judge, punish, and reward the creations, which He loves, based upon weaknesses He designed into them? And being an all knowing God they would be inclinations that He already realizes will be carried out before-hand.

Being an all good God, why then would he create one man who is inclined to commit evil and create pain and suffering upon another one of his innocent creations? This world is full of more pain and suffering than joy and happiness. An all knowing God would foresee this outcome, and an all good God would not create such a world of misery out of His own craft. An all good God would not create a realm of great suffering where there once was none.

And again, I don't think evil is a requisite for freedom of choice. There more than one alternative to good. God denied us the ability to travel through time or teleport across empty space. Even though that limits our will and our choices, that does not strip us of free will.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
On the issue regarding the existence of a god, I've pondered this too. For example, I remember reading about our primative cultures where we believed the gods caused the rain to fall, the earth to shake, or to cause disease and death. I thought that these people obviously did not have the capacity to understand how things work, so they used a belief in a god to explain the things they didn't understand.

I agree with you. Man has the everlasting quest to rationalize and categorize everything. Man wishes to understand everything he encounters. So in ancient times, before the birth of modern science, when the Greeks had no idea what the Sun was, what Love was, what Lightening was, etc, he consciously personified it because attaching a human reference to something as mysterious as Love and Sun and Lightening, helped the human pysche cope with great frieghtening phenomenon. As time passed and humanity progressed, we began to understand more and more about our world and the number of gods began to shrink. For everything we began to understand the cause, origin, and purpose for, we created a science and for everything else, we maintained a divinity. As this juncture in history, the only thing left in this world that we can not explain or comprehend is death and beyond death. Thus today we still have religions to describe grandiose afterlives that allow us to put our minds at ease about the finality of death. As long as there is discomfort about death and dying, there will always remain a theistic culture to calm the masses.


" The death of dogma is the birth of reason. "

- Immanuel Kant

If God was all good and therefore it is against his nature to create evil, then evil would not exist and we would have no way of determining if God is good or evil because there would only be good and nothing else to compare it to.

God made us sinners with a propensity to follow evil, but we have a choice to be good. Without this choice we would either be good (no free-will, hence evil) or we would be evil (no free-choice, hence evil). He had to start out with one position and then give us the opportunity to move from this position (evil to good). If he started us out as all good, then there would be no need for free-will because we would not have to think for ourselves. We could sit around, do nothing and we would automatically be allowed into heaven by default. That's why you have to start off with the default for the propsensity to act evil.

God did create a world where people can be miserable and in pain. But joy and hapiness goes to perception/belief, some people can be happy taking out trash for a living. People on death-row can find solitude and happiness. People can find happiness and joy on their death-bed because they believe they are going to a better place. Martyrs accepted and possibly were happy because they may have believed they are doing the right thing. People who are healthy as a horse and with multi-million dollar bank accounts are not necesarilly without misery and pain. Like I said, it's all perception/belief. So this is where our free-will enters: do we chose to be miserable or do we chose joy and solice? Bad things will happen to all of us, some worse than others. It is how we react to these situations that sets us apart. We can choose to reject evil by passing an opportunity to steal something from an unattended purse. Or we could chose to remain happy when we find out we have a terminal illness.

You're right, evil is not a prerequisite of free-will. It is one of the choices we can make while exercising our free-will. Of course there would be no free-will if there was no evil. What can you choose if there is only good? You could also say that good is a prerequisite of free-will because without good there would only be evil to choose from. It could also be said that there has to be a choice in order to have either good or evil because you would have no idea what is good or what is evil if either one of the choices were not present.

Oh my God! :eek1: There is a debate over someone who does not exist! (J.K.):D

I believe in God too, but I just don’t understand why He created the world this way. It’s just wrong to me. You have the poor and the rich. These two always fight against each other and create jealousy. If God is The All Knowing and good, then why he didn’t prevent Lucifer and hold her accountable for what she did/does/has done/is doing to us (start from Adam and Eve.....) ?

Originally posted by LS400Dom
I believe in God too, but I just don’t understand why He created the world this way. It’s just wrong to me. You have the poor and the rich. These two always fight against each other and create jealousy. If God is The All Knowing and good, then why he didn’t prevent Lucifer and hold her accountable for what she did/does/has done/is doing to us (start from Adam and Eve.....) ?

And also, why did he create so many paths to His truth (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc), and have the people he created, which He loves, fight and kill each other for the last 1300 years over differences in their understanding Him? To me, this is not a type of God I would worship or invest any faith to.

I also have a problem with 'blind faith'. I will not jump off a cliff with the faith that there is a ledge four feet below to catch me. I'm more pragmatic than that. I'll first look over the edge of the cliff to see that there is a ledge to land on before I begin to believe it. I will not dedicate my life and lifestyle to a path that often times conlficts with my own personal feelings and emotions, on the mere whim of a faith in a God that has not proven his existance.

And why are humans compelled to prove the existance of a God when God Himself can't or won't even take measures to prove Himself? If God is incapable of providing an undeniable, incontravertible sign of his existance and greatness, then what makes humans think that they are up to the task of doing so? And if God creates man, and endows him with the gift of rational thought and skepticism, why would such a God be as cruel to expect these creations to belive in His greatness or suffer eternal damnation without any rational proof outside of scriptures written by man as a message of His will? There are just too many contradictions in the way God is supposed to be and how such a God is.

" Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. "

- Thomas Jefferson

" Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. "

- Carl Sagan

" Blind faith, no matter how passionately expressed, will not suffice. Science for its part will test relentlessly every assumption about the human condition. "

- Edward O. Wilson


" Scientific education and religious education are incompatible. The clergy have ceased to interfere with education at the advanced state, but they still control that of the children. This means that children will have to learn about Adam and Noah instead of about evolution, about David killing Goliath instead of Koch killing cholera, about Christ's ascent into heaven instead of Montgolfier's and Wright's. Worse than that they are taught that it is a virtue to accept statements without adequate evidence, which leaves them prey to quacks of every kind and makes it difficult for them to accept the methods of thought that are successful in science. "

- JB Haldane (geneticist)

"To me, this is not a type of God I would worship or invest any faith to."

I think to myself, with all the abuse going on in the church, you let these people who represent you, do this to young children?

I couldn't back anyone who lets that stand, call it simplistic, but that's how I feel.

Originally posted by jpa2400
"To me, this is not a type of God I would worship or invest any faith to."

I think to myself, with all the abuse going on in the church, you let these people who represent you, do this to young children?

I couldn't back anyone who lets that stand, call it simplistic, but that's how I feel.

I agree. Would an all good, benevolent God have His own messengers rob the innocence of children? To what end? Is it another morbid test of faith? Would He allow such evil persons to achieve the level of influence and trust that the clergy has over His faithful subjects? Why would such a scenario even come to fruition from the craftful hand of an all good, all powerful, and all knowing God? Why would such a crime against humanity occur for so many decades before coming to the attention of the people? Is it not enough that the sin occurred once, but must reccur over and over and over to wound generations after generations of loyal, faithful subjects?

These clergy were not acting in the name of god even though they were clergy. It just shows that every person is capable of doing evil no matter how holy they are perceived to be. And the other clergy who covered-up the abuses were also committing an evil act. They should be stripped of there position in the church and jailed for committing these crimes against children. The Catholic "government" is made up of men who are all fallable, so religion shouldn't be blamed for the acts of men. Jesus never taught us to commit evil acts, so these clergy were not following the will of God.

For the very reason that men run the Catholic church, some Christians moved away from Catholicism to a a form Christianity that does not recognize the Vatican and base their views on their very own interpretation of the Bible.

These children who were abused were subject to such a great evil, so were the Jews who suffered at the hands of Hitler, and so did/do other people who are the victims of other evil acts. But, evil happens to everyone in one way or another, and some far worse than others. If there was no evil or if God prevents people from suffering from evil acts, then we would be living in a Heaven on earth and we would no longer have free-will to do anything we want, including evil. Furthermore, if there was no evil, there would be no good because there would be nothing to compare it to so we would not know what is good and what is evil.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
You're right, evil is not a prerequisite of free-will.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Of course there would be no free-will if there was no evil.

So which is it? Free will requires evil or evil is not a requirement of free will?

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
If there was no evil or if God prevents people from suffering from evil acts, then we would be living in a Heaven on earth and we would no longer have free-will to do anything we want, including evil.

For the sake of argument, let's apply your logic to the theistic idea of "heaven". Described as a utopia devoid of evil, heaven is in fact a world with no evil. Are you saying then that souls in heaven have no freedom of will? If all souls in heaven were locked into a servitude of will, isn't that what the definition of hell is? So then by default 'heaven = hell'? Since we balk at the idea of 'heaven = hell', isn't it then concluded that evil is not a requisite of free will?

Suppose we were all in Heaven. Without the existance of evil, we could all still have freedom of will to mingle and interact with whichever people we choose and participate in whatever activities we like. I could talk to you, you could talk to Mike, Dave could talk to Mike, we could all ignore Rufus. We all have freedom in this situation, and yet evil is no where in sight. Mother Teresa is arguably sin-free. Are we to assume that her will power has been enslaved or limited to a far greater degree than ours? Absolutely not!

What I'm trying to make you understand is that evil is a trait within us as part of our nature, either put there by the evolution of our psyche or ingrained in our spirits by a deistic power. Without evil, we can still have choice. Just like a car is limited in that it cannot fly in the skies nor sail in the seas, but we still have complete freedom to drive around wherever we want on land.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Furthermore, if there was no evil, there would be no good because there would be nothing to compare it to so we would not know what is good and what is evil.

The idea of evil is 100% manmade. No where else in the known natural universe does such a thing exist besides in our minds. The term "evil" is not a tangible, meaning it is merely an idea we have to describe something. And this idea is shaped by societal standards, which are also manmade. When a shark kills another shark, when a lioness eats her own young, when a male insect forces itself onto a female, do we see these behaviors as evil, reprehensible deeds? Nope, it's natural! Yet if a human were to commit the same acts, the public outcry would be unsurmountable!

So what is it about humans that makes us create the idea of 'evil', an 'ultimate evil', and a 'good and evil struggle'? It's not the simple fact that we are humans, rational beings, for in many other Eastern cultures the idea of 'evil' has no place. It is Western thought that drives this polarization of concepts. There must be a black and white, a yes and no, a hot and cold, a dark and light, a good and evil, a God and Satan. If you are asked a question, a yes or no answer is expected of you. If you say maybe you are scorned as being indecisive.

The bible is a book written by a bunch of "prophets" who in today's society, if they came out in public and proclaimed to be talking to angels, god, etc. would all be locked up in a nut house.

That's what I think about christianity. Kind of like what most christians think of mormons... Same thing. Where do they think christianity came from?! A Group of guys who believed something and wrote a book, just like what the mormons base there belief on.

In the end I consider myself to be a deist, because I believe in a higher power, I just haven't at this point in my life figured out what/who I think it is. Maybe it is the christian god, maybe it is another kind of god, I don't know.

-Ethan

Originally posted by Ebanks
The bible is a book written by a bunch of "prophets" who in today's society, if they came out in public and proclaimed to be talking to angels, god, etc. would all be locked up in a nut house.

Excellent point, let me apply some hard science to this idea... In the last century, the American Psychiatric Association has made great strides in catergorizing and studying brain disorders. One of the ones they've classified is called Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Epilepsy takes form in recurring seizures, which are massive electrical storms of uncontrollable brain activity.

The temporal lobe of the human brain has a primary responsiblity in processing sensory data such as touch, taste, site, sound, and smell. The temporal lobe of the brain is also the most highly suceptible region to disfunction and disorders such as unusual sensory experiences, spaciness, confusion, delusions, hallucination, deja vu, mais vu, rage outbursts, seizure, speech problems, sexual disturbances, etc.

Some of the primary symptoms of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy include emotionality, altered sexuality, obsessionalism, altered states of consciousness, sense of personal destiny, overwhelming spirituality, and religious awakenings. For the purpose of this argument, I am most concerned with the last four symptoms. Since brain disorders are not a 20th century horizon, isn't it remotely possible that this small group of ancient "prophets"---who went into solitude or seclusion and came back with many answers about life---isn't it possible that these folks are just the poor victims of TLE? TLE victims today can stare at the ocean and feel as if they've just touched the grace of God. They can stare at a flower for hours and report back that they've discovered the meaning of life. Although it is a rare and sad disorder, isn't it in the realm of possibilities? I think it is the most probable of all possibilities.



Originally posted by Ebanks
In the end I consider myself to be a deist, because I believe in a higher power, I just haven't at this point in my life figured out what/who I think it is. Maybe it is the christian god, maybe it is another kind of god, I don't know.

I would label myself somewhere between undecided and agnostic. I am open to the idea that God created the Universe, that God just triggered the Big Bang and lost control of its path from that point on, that God once was omnipotent but died a long time ago, that God's power waned and God was superceded by another deity, that God love us, that God hates us, that God doesn't care one way or the other, or that God does not nor has God ever existed. I simple couldn't tell you, so I don't try. God after all hasn't even been able to define Himself to us or show us the proof of his existance. What I do know is that conventional ideas on God and God's 'big plan' are faulty, archiac relics of their time periods, or just plain poorly backed dogma.

God = The Universe. God is not self-aware or conscious. Q.E.D.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
God = The Universe. God is not self-aware or conscious. Q.E.D.

That seems to be the most sound definition of God I've heard yet. I take it you read Sagan ;).


" The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a god. This god is emotionally unsatisfying...It does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. "

- Carl Sagan

An interesting analysis of faith is given by the Danish Existentialist Soren Kierkegaard. He argues that the concept of Jesus Christ is totally contradictory, and rationally speaking makes no sense at all. This is precisely why we should have complete faith in Jesus! The lack of rational coherence opens up the greatest possible space for the expression of religious passion. With perfect rationality we have no passion (consider how passionate your belief in 2+2=4 is). With no rationality, we have complete passion in accepting the belief because there is maximum risk, no assurance from reason that you are right but you are risking it all on God. The passion Kierkegaard speaks of is called 'existential pathos', the passion of existence. We get closer to existence itself through passion, not through reason. Since faith in the paradox of Christ has the most passion, it gets us closer to pure being than any other concept will, precisely because it is so irrational!

Originally posted by lex400sc
So which is it? Free will requires evil or evil is not a requirement of free will?
I also stated a few times now that evil is a choice that we exercise while using our free-will. If there was no evil, that's fine because it doesn't affect free-will. For example, you can still choose to wear a blue shirt or a red shirt, no evil is involved and free-will is still intact. You could also excercise your free-will when you choose to accept God or not. Choosing to not accept god is not evil but according to the Bible it bars admission to heaven. Whenever we are presented with a choice, there is either good or evil, blue or red, or up or down. If we weren't given the choice to do good or evil, we would still have free-will to make other choices such as a blue shirt or a red shirt. So, evil or good is neither a prerequisite to free-will, but good must be present with evil when we are presented with the free-will to choose either one of the two. Like I've said a few times now, evil is one of the choices made when exercising our free-will to do good or evil.

Originally posted by lex400sc
For the sake of argument, let's apply your logic to the theistic idea of "heaven". Described as a utopia devoid of evil, heaven is in fact a world with no evil. Are you saying then that souls in heaven have no freedom of will? If all souls in heaven were locked into a servitude of will, isn't that what the definition of hell is? So then by default 'heaven = hell'? Since we balk at the idea of 'heaven = hell', isn't it then concluded that evil is not a requisite of free will?

Suppose we were all in Heaven. Without the existance of evil, we could all still have freedom of will to mingle and interact with whichever people we choose and participate in whatever activities we like. I could talk to you, you could talk to Mike, Dave could talk to Mike, we could all ignore Rufus. We all have freedom in this situation, and yet evil is no where in sight. Mother Teresa is arguably sin-free. Are we to assume that her will power has been enslaved or limited to a far greater degree than ours? Absolutely not!
My previous posts stated that there can be evil, to be more exact evil acts, in heaven. An example I provided was Lucifer who was an angel but was kicked out of heaven for committing an evil act. So yes, evil can occur in heaven.

Originally posted by lex400sc
What I'm trying to make you understand is that evil is a trait within us as part of our nature, either put there by the evolution of our psyche or ingrained in our spirits by a deistic power. Without evil, we can still have choice. Just like a car is limited in that it cannot fly in the skies nor sail in the seas, but we still have complete freedom to drive around wherever we want on land.
And no, you haven't been trying to make me understand that evil is a trait within us unitl now. You've been talking about whether evil is a prerequisite or not. But, I did say in my previous post that according to the Bible we are born as sinners, that is, we are born with a propensity to do evil. Does that mean we are evil? Nope, like you said below, evil is not tangible and it is an idea or standard that people are judged against.

Originally posted by lex400sc
The idea of evil is 100% manmade. No where else in the known natural universe does such a thing exist besides in our minds. The term "evil" is not a tangible, meaning it is merely an idea we have to describe something. And this idea is shaped by societal standards, which are also manmade. When a shark kills another shark, when a lioness eats her own young, when a male insect forces itself onto a female, do we see these behaviors as evil, reprehensible deeds? Nope, it's natural! Yet if a human were to commit the same acts, the public outcry would be unsurmountable!
You are right, evil depends on a person's perception or beliefs. It has changed constantly throughout history and will continue to change. Some people create this standard based on their religion. One god says paligomy is acceptable, while another god says it isn't. So the argument about evil boils down to beliefs. What is evil depends on the person and evil is a choice we have when we exercise our free-will.

But I am not one to say that a person is evil for rejecting god, nor am I going to say someone is good because they chose god. One of the major teachings in the Bible is being ignored by religous fanatics: do not judge a person. I really hate this, for example if I believed in god I would think that a person who stands on a street corner and declares everyone who rejects god is going to hell is not following the teachings of god. If I was an aethiest and saw this I would be insulted and pissed off at the person.

So, is religion the cause of all polarization or scorn? No, unless the religion commands its followers to kill, rape, and pillage. For example, a whopping majority of Muslims do not condone the violence terrorists are committing in the name of Jihad. It stems from how a person interprets what they believe. Will the terrorists ascend to Allah's side if they blow up a bus? It depends if their interpretation of their religion really true. Will I go to heaven if I commit no evil acts, it depends on whether my interpretation of what is good according to the bible is correct. Alternatively, the preceeding questions would be irrelevant if there is no god.

Originally posted by lex400sc
That seems to be the most sound definition of God I've heard yet. I take it you read Sagan ;).

Thank you! I don't however, agree with Sagan's comment in your quote:

But if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a god. This god is emotionally unsatisfying...It does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. "

He is missing the point. Praying is a form of meditation to seek guidance and to revere something larger than ourselves. While I do not accept that there is a conscious deity, I am in awe and reverence of our universe and the relative insignificance of human participation in it. I can also seek guidance through meditation about the universe and my place in it, and find perspective and relief from stress and negativity. Last week I was on a self-awareness course where we camped all week (!) and I had lots of opportunities to meditate and interact with 'nature', and the abundance of life that was all around me was amazing, and humbling. I am no better than the ant that was scurrying up and down a tree with thousands of others trying to get work done. And I am in awe of them.

Points to think about

*if god was born in the middle east, who were the American Indians worshipping the whole time? and should they all be punished because they were never took Christ into their heart?
*if god knows everything, then he knows that evil people will do before they are born, and that means he will condem them to hell before they are born. IF HE KNOWS EVERYTHING, THEN YOU HAVE NO CHOICES IN LIFE, because he knows what choices you will make before you make them.
*Why hasn't he sent his son again yet? isn't it time for a reapearance?

I personally believe in God, I have alot of question that I don't think anyone could ever answer about him (it). In my heart I know that something out there is bigger than all of us and I feel some truth to what God is depicted as by past generations. I choose to make God something special to me and I disregard alot of what other people might define as an absolute God.

I believe, therefore I am.

When you walk down the street or on the sidewalk by your house you step on all kinds of things including ants and a lot of other insects. By our definition of evil you just took the life of a living creature and that in itself is evil. Taking the life of another human is evil so why not taking the life of a creature. A lot of people hunt and kill for sport or to survive but by definition that would also be considered evil. Eating plants or other vegetation would also be evil. Those are living working cells in those plants and vegetation. What we consider to be wrong and right is something any of us can come up with. By my definition being wrong can be right and being right can be wrong does that make you a sinner? Does killing an ant make you a sinner? Does eating another animal or human man you a sinner? Does it make you evil? If by doing something evil makes you a sinner then most of your everyday doings are sins. Your mind wanders and, don’t tell me it doesn’t because, some of the thoughts people have can never be spoken of. Christianity says you must repent for your sins, but I can guarantee that basically no one repents for half of those sins (or evil doings) and most of us don’t even know we did half of them.

That means that there are probably no people in heaven right now. My teacher read us a part of a quote a long time ago which I still remember and thought it was pretty interesting. "Most of the interesting people are in hell." I don’t really want to dwell on that but it’s just something you wouldn’t really think of right away.

But like lex400sc said, evil is just something humans have. It’s not something that is tangible or concrete. There is no pure definition of evil or anything even like that. Do animals have the thought of "evil"? What purpose do animals or anything living, for that sake of this argument, have? If you take all of time as a factor than they were put on this earth or evolved, which ever you prefer to believe, into what they are now. But what reason are they here for? Killing is wrong and evil so what are we supposed to do with living creatures? Do they have no purpose? For all we know that could be hell. Being an animal. They have no power to reason or rationalize with themselves. They cannot know evil or good. They do not know their purpose. All they know is survival. They only have instinct and by instinct they must survive by any means necessary. In fact, maybe that’s heaven and this is hell. Being human isn’t really that great. You have everyday problems to deal with. You have to reason with good and evil constantly and, most of all; you have to work to get to heaven. The same can apply for us. What purpose do we even serve? We are all on this earth and we do nothing for it. We pollute it, deplete it of its resources and create nothing but waste. That's the purpose God put us on this planet for? To destroy it? His creations and ourselves? Let’s just say that he put us here to worship Him. Could we not do that in heaven? If we must have free will and a choice then how many of us would really choose to be in hell? If we have no choice or free will than what would the purpose of a hell be?

That takes me to my next point. What is heaven? Do we have a concrete definition of that? Not many religions agree on a heaven or hell. Some religions believe we are reincarnated. Does heaven have to be an actually place of a state of mind? When you die your mind does not die with the rest of your body instantly. It can take minutes to, well that’s not the point. When you dream you are in a state of mind. You are you in absolute solitude (except the people or creatures that are also in your unconscious drifting mind). Now dreams can last from seconds to hours or days. It’s just a state of mind. In relative time it can be a few minutes but in your state of mind you can be there for hours. When you die your mind is forced into that state of mind. Your life could flash before you. You can see and/or hear things from the past, present or anything else. You may see a beautiful garden with no one and at the same time feel everyone. You may be falling into a sea of blood and feel like your body is burning from the inside out. That in itself is your heaven or hell. Your mind is just drifting into a state of lifelessness which can last for a period in time which is totally different from the relative time you sense. You life can reflect on your mind and with that information it can be turned into what you believe, much like dreams.

With all the religions out there how does anyone know which is even the right one? Is there a right one? What if your values or principles don’t necessarily correspond with that religion and you choose a different one? Does that deny you from going to heaven? If so, then you are being denied of free will. Should you not be able to choose a religion? After all they all basically tell you lead a good life and not to sin. What difference does it make which one you pick? Anyways, how can you pick the “right” one when you don’t know which is even the right one?

Here's something i found on another chat.


If Roses Have No Thorns In Heaven......


Why are there even roses at all? We pass from physical bodies to spirits, there is no need for air. Why does heaven have air? Spirits do not need air. Roses and flowers are all things that are traits of the earth, along with air. These were all designed around the concept of humans needing air so things were made within that design, if you believe God built this whole concept.

Furthering the thought that the concept of god was written by a human, This is just one such example of the state of mind of the author. God and all who are in heaven are spirits. God didn't have to create air for roses in heaven. Roses grow in dirt, dirt is a physical substance which tailors itself to the atmosphere around it.

If we are spirits, why do we need physical objects? How do we smell the sweetest smells in heaven if we are spiritual energy? We have no nose.

Everything in the bible contradicts itself by naming things that are of physical nature, touch, smell, etc.
Yet the bible teaches us that we will be completely spiritual energy.

The point of view that the entire religion of christianity was written in is the point of view of a human being. Not the concept and words of a spiritual being which needs nothing mentioned in the bible at all for the most part. It was written naming wonderful physical attributes such as no pain. Only a human would write about having no pain, only a human feels pain.

This and so much more can be seen if you look at the point of view from which the bible was written. The entire faith with the concept of God and heaven was written by a human.


Furthermore, why are we going to return to earth and build a palace? Are we really to believe that this hellhole we call earth is the best the universe has to offer? Only someone from the dark ages who didn't know what was really out there (about 2,000 years ago for instance) would write about returning to earth. Why come back to Earth? Look at all that is out there. This isn't the center of the universe.

Another point of proof that the concept of christ was written by someone on earth long ago.

PS- i take no stance with that post in any way, just thought i'd add it since i came across it.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Actually, I think it is the other way around. God gave us free-will and presents us with temptations (evil) so we could exercise our free-will, i.e., whether we choose/attempt to live by the word of God or not. One of the basis of the Bible is that we are sinners and we have the choice to change this. Evil is not a prerequisite of free-will, it is a choice made while exercising free-will.

As stated, Heaven does not have evil. There is still free-will though, just like Lucifer who was in Heaven
and he chose evil so he was "kicked out". If there was no free-will in Heaven, then Lucifer could not have chosen evil.

God did make us in his image, but of course he didn't give us all of His powers, so the argument that we must be good because God is good does not hold true. If he created us exactly as Himself (including the good and the desire to follow Him), then we would not have our own free-will to choose whether or not to follow God. Additionally, we would not be sinners (as it is assumed we are in the Bible) and this is contradiction to God's nature.

Of course all these arguments assume there is a god, but that's another issue.


Just so you all know the phrase "free will" are man made. You will not find these words together anywhere in the Bible:egads:

Does not mean we cant use them but I needed to be sure we were all clear on this:thumbup:

Out of all the religions in the world the Jesus thing works for me:D After all Jesus was the only prophet who said he was/is the Messiah:cylon: