Several questions concerning the fall and evil

[Byblos]

Evil and suffering are my only objections to the existence of God.

Have you read the counter-arguments to these?
Stuff by William Lane Craig for example?

I've heard much of WLC and I always find his arguments extremely dissatisfying. I would prefer if man would not pretend to speak on behalf of God.

Now that's rather funny Beanbag. In other words, you won't be persuaded by any argument unless it is presented by God himself?

Well, in that case may I suggest a little book called the Bible.

[Beanybag]

Evil and suffering are my only objections to the existence of God.

Have you read the counter-arguments to these?
Stuff by William Lane Craig for example?

I've heard much of WLC and I always find his arguments extremely dissatisfying. I would prefer if man would not pretend to speak on behalf of God.

Now that's rather funny Beanbag. In other words, you won't be persuaded by any argument unless it is presented by God himself?

Well, in that case may I suggest a little book called the Bible.

No no, that's not what I mean (and the Bible was still written by man anyway, yes? I'd still find that dissatisfying). I mean, when WLC defends what many would seem to be atrocities that God supposedly allowed, I find his explanation of what he thinks God's motives are to be unsatisfactory in the extreme. Better to let his motives remain a mystery and let those who trust in God, trust in God. I'd prefer no explanation to a bad one.

[PaulSacramento]

Evil and suffering are my only objections to the existence of God.

Have you read the counter-arguments to these?
Stuff by William Lane Craig for example?

I've heard much of WLC and I always find his arguments extremely dissatisfying. I would prefer if man would not pretend to speak on behalf of God.

People speak on "behalf" of God all the time.
It's called "expressing an opinion".
You don't have to agree or even like it, but that doesn't mean its not valid.

In regards to the issue of suffering and evil, well, I think that they are not always inter-related *though they can be of course), I also think that the term "evil" needs to be quantified since without an "absolute good" what exactly makes something "evil".
The suffering issue is, to me, not that complex. It was at one pint THE biggest barrier for MY belief in God ( or at least in a "just" God).
Then I UNDERSTOOD freewill.

[B. W.]

I would say Buddhism is far more unique than Christianity as there is no sacred or holy entity to be worshiped in Buddhism. There is no God and it doesnt even really espouse the supernatural at all. For you to claim that Buddhism says the same thing as Islam is flat out false as the teachings are very different.

Historically Buddhist thought borrowed from King Solomon that the bible speaks of and from it developed its own, can’t be sure about anything, philosophy. No, it is not superior but basically Old Testament based on human works as it has King Solomon as its source. Buddhism is not unique at all but browed and twisted from King Solomon’s writings on wisdom...

Next,

As for the bible, we just asks you to believe in Christ, accept God’s offer of forgiveness, that’s all.

All the other religions out there only offers a book a set of principles of self inflicted works, activated in varying degrees from making oneself miserable enough to solicit pity, or do this to get that (deal making), or employ certain degrees of self loathing to earn a deal mentioned in their respective writings, or even just by warping/twisting principles/philosophy set forth to justify one is superior so as to avoid God’s offer of forgiveness, just as you so do now.

Only in Christianity does God’s offer forgiveness by grace alone and for those that accept his offer, he indwells those that accept. We follow a living God, not a set of dogmas or creeds. To believe in Christ is more than intellectual assent to the bible. It is bowing to him to govern one’s life, not thru a set of rules on paper but by his personal indwelling witness that says depend on him alone and forsake thy self works.

The bible just teaches and reveals truths about who and what we are compared to who and what God is and does. I like to remind you, Christianity spread without the New Testament so your statements about the bible are moot. It is the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God governing a person is what makes Christianity real.

You look to words only from a page, or at what people do. Any religion can be hi-jack by nefarious people and stained. Christianity is no exception. However, with Christianity, there is an unseen living hand that allows and does correction against those that hijack it. The others world’s religions, no such hand exist.

Your opening page indicates that your premise is that since there is evil in the world that proves that God does not exist? Correct?

The evil, or nefarious attitudes we have about God, are from us. The Lord came to adopt us to become his own. That is why Forgiveness is offered and must be accepted by us. This dual forgiveness is like forgiving someone and then adopting them into your own home. If the other party refuses accepting gracious forgiveness, how would they treat your household?

How are you treating God right now? His offer is to you and you refuse. If you continue to refuse, he will refuse you because such refusal proves exploitation of God’s grace and contempt for his gracious governing power shed abroad in the heart of them that believe in Christ. To believe in Christ involves a lifelong process in this mortal life learning how to be governed by God’s Grace.

The bible reveals this and sets forth a road map so one does not stray. That is how the bible works in the life of a believer in Christ. The indwelling witness is what governs, instructs, guides, protects, and leads us. Instead of slavery, we find freedom. Our kingdom is not of this world, as is yours. We understand we have been adopted. May the Lord God Almighty open you heart to receive His Holy Spirit. Amen...

What is keeping you from accepting God's offer of Forgiveness?
-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

Sometimes people who think that have done "nothing wrong", have a hard time accepting forgiveness.

[jlay]

Mag,

You are complaining about not having your questions answered. (Although you admit no answer will suffice)
I do appreciate you sharing your story. Just to put if candidly, you sound misrerable. So, how is this new worldview working out for you? How does it better answer the question of suffering?

[MAGSolo]

How do I know that an invisible, make believe being, that never talks to us or shows himself isnt preventing some suffering? Gee, I guess I dont know for sure. Maybe Im not starving to death right now because God is watching over me. So what makes me any more special that God is preventing me from suffering while some child is starving somewhere or getting sexually abused?

No one here should take you seriously if you load your replies with question begging.
Well I think it was kind of a ridiculous question.

Ill ask again, do angels in heaven have free will? Will we have free will when go to heaven?

Honestly, I don't know how to competely answer this. I would assume that angels had some sort of will, since, some rebelled against God.

Let me just roll with this idea of yours for the sake of argument. Lets say I couldnt care less about starving children, we live in a world where the young of all species die early and human children are no different. I dont personally care about children dying of starvation, and I dont intend to do anything about it, but I do believe the fact that many children suffer and die every year from starvation, disease, and neglect, is strong evidence that there is no all powerful, good, and loving God watching over us. You see, you saying that I dont really care about starving children doesnt diminish the strength of my argument at all because even if I didnt care a bit about them, that doesnt change the fact that God still allows them to suffer and die daily.

The problem with your assesment, is that you are having to presume a God to deny him.
Could you explain what you mean by this?
If there is no God, and no inherent value, then why are you concerned?
Why does there need to be a God for me to be concerned? I would say Im concerned simply because I have the mental capacity to be concerned. Dogs arent concerned with starving children because they dont have the capacity to do so. It is simply a product of having higher thought processes.
How do you judge that it is good to help and evil to ignore?
I wouldnt say its evil to ignore, and if I did I retract that statement. I think its wrong to ignore suffering but I dont think its necessarily evil. In the same way that cheating on a test is wrong but its not evil to me. You shouldnt cheat on tests and you shouldnt ignore suffering that you can prevent but not doing so doesnt make you evil to me, but it does make you wrong.
It also presumes that you are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent and able to assess the situation in its eternal implications and results. Are you?
I am not

So angels dont have free will and we wont have free will in heaven? If angels in heaven can survive without free will then not having free will must not be that bad so what is so great about free will?

Why don't you actually posit an argument? what are you arguing for or against? YOu do understand we are talking about what makes a human a human?
My argument is that if angels can exist in heaven without suffering and evil and God made angels, and suffering and evil will not be issues when we are in heaven, then it doesnt make sense to act like there are no conditions God could create where suffering and evil wont be issues. You are acting like suffering and evil are basic requirements of mere existence. You are acting like God could not have created intelligent, self-aware beings without evil and suffering being an issue, but then we will apparently be intelligent and self aware in heaven and evil and suffering wont be an issue. If God can make it not an issue in heaven, why cant he do it here on Earth? If God could make any world where suffering and evil are not issues then why would he make one where suffering and evil are issues?

I will provide for the children I create. I cant save the world and Im not going to try. If I personally saw a child starving I would give that child food (which seems to be more than all powerful God is willing to do) and if it were within my power to feed every last starving child I would, but I cant and starving children are just a part of living in a natural world where no invisible supernatural being is watching over us and protecting us

.
Let's just say that everyone followed your simple model. Would there be any starving children?
No, but God is ultimately responsible for all of our existences. We are supposedly all Gods children so just as I will provide for any child I produce since I made that child and am responsible for it. God is responsible for each and every child on earth because all children are Gods children and as such he should provide for all of his children.
And on what basis SHOULD you provide for the one's you create. Obviously, it is obvious to you. I would say it is OBVIOUS to all. Yet, we blame God for not doing what He has made obvious to us?
I should provide for children I create on the basis that they cannot do so themselves and I love them and am responsible for them. Animals much lower than humans seek to provide for their offspring. If God were to exist, I would blame him for not being ultimately responsible for the beings he created. If he created us then he should be responsible for each and every one of us. I would say that clearly there is a point where a child grows up and is able to make its own decisions and suffer the repercussions of those decisions but that point is not when a child is not yet able to provide for itself. Much in the same way that a good parent tries hard to provide for and protect their children from unnecessary suffering (such as starving to death), God should do the same since he created us all (again hypothetically). How can all children be Gods children and yet many of them suffer and die from lack of basic needs?
FYI, there are literally millions who are fed due to organizations that are motivated by faith, and feel compelled to help the less fortunate. let me ask you. If there is no God, why shouldn't we just consider the starving a perfectly natural result of nature correcting course? Survival of the fittest. In fact, wouldn't we just be going against nature to intervene? How can you trust that your conscience (which you can't account for) is in line with nature?
Starving is just a result of nature as all species experience it. Humans simply have the capacity to understand and empathize with the implications of starvation. Really from a theistic perspective I would think they should be happy to let them starve since that only means they get to be with God that much quicker. But it seems that there is something within us that seems to understand the finality of death and therefore we seek to prevent it and delay it as long as possible. Life is so precious to so many because we feel that this is all there is, so many of the most ardent believers do their best to delay it even though the next world and life is supposedly much better than this one. So while we should welcome death and an end to this mortal life gladly, are instincts betray us and we seek to live as long as possible because instinctualy we dont believe there is anything after this.

Do angels have free will? Will we have free will in heaven?

It is a tough question. I've seen it answered a couple of ways. The Bible says, that when resurrected, we will be made like Him. (Christ) Now, Christ was human, and had free will, but never sinned. There was something different in His nature (divine). Now you could literally go into a 20 page discussion on dualism, and a variety of other philosophical discussions, and still not have a perfect answer. But one might simplify it this way. If I offer you a cookie, you might be glad to take it. Even if it isn't the best cookie ever made. However, if the free choice came down to my cookie, and the world's best cookie ever made with amazing aroma and flavor, there wouldn't be any decision so to speak. In God's presence, all the things this world has to offer, will offer no comparison. Romans 8:18, 2 Cor. 4:17.
If we can be like Christ after the resurrection, why couldnt God just make us that way from the start? If there is a condition we can exist in where suffering and evil will not be problems, then I dont see the point in arguing that God had to make us the way we currently are.

Let's not also forget that although suffering is a difficult reality, Christ suffered in every way. He fasted, willingly, for 40 days, and faced temptations in the wake of such suffering.
(Matt. 4)

People who produce children they cant provide for are responsible.

So, if there is a God, should He hold people accountable for such things?
If he didnt want such accountability and responsibility he should not have created us. In the same way I ask why have a child you dont want to be responsible for; I would ask God Why create humans if you werent willing to be accountable and responsible for every last one of them. Dont have ten kids if you dont dont want to be responsible for ten kids. Dont create humans that will number into the billions if you dont want to responsible for billions of human beings.

No it doesnt matter. We arent special and this proves it. In the bibles Jesus asks are we not much more valuable than birds, and he provides for them so he will provide for us. The fact that children die of starvation and lack of clean water shows that the bible is wrong, that we actually arent any more special than birds and grass, we are just smarter than them.

Let me get this straight. In your worldview, it doesn't matter that children suffer and starve?
To me personally it matters in the sense that it saddens me but in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. Humans are living creature and young living creatures die when they are not provided for. In this sense we are no different from any other animal. many animals suffer and die and have done so throughout history. The babies of many species are eaten alive on a daily basis, its how the world is. I dont enjoy seeing a baby antelope get killed and eaten by a lion and if I had the power to feed lions while making sure that they didnt kill any other baby animals I would do so but ultimately the death of a baby antelope doesnt "matter". I dont like the fact that human children often suffer and starve and if I had the power I would prevent it but ultimately I do not think it matters as suffering and death are just a reality of this world. To me a any animal suffering and dying is tragic but this is just a result of my ability to think of such things in such a manner. I think if we were special then God would take extra care to ensure that we didnt suffer and die in the same way every other species does. If we were special then God would provide for and protect each and every one of us as if we were special. As it is we are afforded no more care and protection other than that which we provide for ourselves.

There is nothing inherently better about offering a starving person food, than witholding it? If you say there is a difference, then please account for such. Simply saying it is, isn't an answer.
If not, Then why does your opinion matter? Your not special. Truth doesn't matter and likely doesn't exist, as there would have to be some objective standard outside of man. And so, even if you were correct, it doesn't matter. Why are you on this forum exactly?
Im lost as to where you are going with this line of inquiry. What specifically are you asking me?

For suffering to matter to whom?

Meaning. You've already admitted that humans suffereing is no more significant than grass wilting. It either matters or it doesn't. If it does, you've already been challenged to account for it.
Suffering matters to me personally, I am not indifferent to it but I dont know what you mean by I have been challenged to account for it. Suffering comes from many sources: other people, diseases, nature. I dont know if this is what you mean by account for it.
So, perhaps we are all deluded into believing there is a God, and that right and wrong objectivley matter. But in your world, this doesn't matter either, since nothing is inherently right or wrong. Yet, here you are saying it does. Does that seem reasonable to you??
I agree that this is a bit of an issue. The problem is that I dont think the Bible or God are good barometers of what is objective right or wrong, good and evil. There are numerous things in the bible that God decreed that I dont think are good or right, so I think there is an issue with using God as the measuring stick for what is right and wrong. Remember the story of Uzzah in 2 Samuel; how God commanded that no one touch the ark, and as the men were traveling the ox started to cause the ark to tip over and Uzzah reached out his hand to steady it and God became angry and struck him dead on the spot? No malicious intent at all, just seeking to prevent the ark from falling over but because God commanded it not to be touched and he touched it, he struck him dead instantly. I wonder how God expected them to get the ark back up without touching it if it had tipped over. Now I imagine you will gloss over this, claim thats not what the text meant or bow out outright as Neo did when I showed him the numerous passages of God commanding that children be killed. But let me be clear that I think this clearly shows that neither the bible or God are good objective measuring sticks for what is good and what is not. If you you dont answer anything else in this post I would like to see your response to this specific thing.

If he has the power to stop it and doesnt, I dont see how that can be seen as anything but indifference. If he cared about children starving and could prevent it, for what good reason would he not do so?

I would say God cares. Let me ask you a question. If you could go back in time and meet Adolf Hitler as a child, would you feed him if he were starving, even if you knew what would happen if he grew up, and thus could save millions of people? This is called a moral dilema. Your knowing the future might have an incredible affect. We assume that God is sitting in heaven, looking down, and wondering if He should choose to do something. But, we may be in error to assume this is how things are playing out. I would say God has already done something.
If I could go back in time and see Hitler as a child and he was starving, I would feed him, and take him someplace where he would not be raised to have such misguided hatred in his heart. I would do all I could to ensure that he did not grow up in the environment that made him the horrible person he turned out to be.

If God created the universe, then He created it a certain way with an eternal purpose. We assume, option A, B or C, but this notion fails as well. For one to suggest man without freewill is a logical contradiction. It would be like me putting a gun to your head and forcing you to give to a charity, and then saying that you did a 'good' deed.
But yet we will be able to exist in heaven or the new Earth where free will, suffering, and evil wont be a pressing matter. If we can live in the next life and free will wont be a pressing matter, I fail to see how you can argue that God had to create us with free will in this life. Why couldnt God just create us in the world we will be a part of where free will wont be an issue?

There are atheist all around you and they probably dont go around torturing puppies and starving children. To assume that a lack of belief in an invisible being that never speaks or shows himself automatically means one has no concept of right and wrong is a very ignorant.

No, it is actually ignorant on your part. No one here is saying atheist CAN'T do good. They do. The problem is they can't defend why.
Are you saying that because people dont believe in God, they have no excuse for why they are able to live in peace and harmony with others? I seriously dont see your point here. It seems that you are saying that because one doesnt believe in God, they have no valid reason for why they should do good. Is that what you are saying? That would be like me saying that people who believe in God cant defend why they do bad things. Do you believe that everyone who believes in God never does bad things? If they do, what is there excuse? Do you see what an unreasonable question that is.
Why is this a problem? Exactly what you ignorantly state. You are BOASTING that people are making a BETTER choice. That helping starving people is BETTER than ignoring them. Yet, you can't even begin to say why that is the case.
Do you think everyone who believes in God has tried to help starving people? If not can you begin to state why that is the case? Why would anyone believe in God and not help starving people? You believe in God right? Do you help starving people every day? Why should I need any justification for thinking that helping starving people is better than ignoring them other than the fact that thats justs how I feel?
You have to presume an objective moral standard that man SHOULD live up to. Yet, if there is an objective moral standard for man to live up to, then it has to exist apart from man. Yet, you deny outright, that an objective moral being exist outside of man. And thus you are back to square one. Nothing matters. So, please tell us, why do you live in contradiciton? Why are you saying out of one side of your mouth it is a good thing to know right from wrong, but then say it doesn't matter?
There is a very simple answer to this. It benefits all mankind to be good to each other. No man is an island and everyone needs other people to survive so therefore it makes sense to do good things to and for each other. If everyone said well because there is no God I am just going to do whatever I please, then humanity would not survive for very long but we need others and to an extent the vast majority of people enjoy the company of at least a handful of other people. Even without God, it benefits people to be good to others for the survival of all. Why people are good without the existence of God is not the huge earth-shattering dilemma you think it is.

So are you saying you cant prove there is an afterlife without the bible?

I could prove it, but the experiement is one I doubt you would agree to.

What point are you trying to make? Are you saying Im evil, are you judging me?

I'm making judgments about the logical problems in your worldview. I'm making an assesment, that if evil exist, then people are evil. You are a person, therefore you are evil. Wasn't it you that said you want God to eliminate evil people? Do you consider yourself a good person?

I do consider myself a good person yes.

[Beanybag]

Jeez, some of these posts are sore on the eyes.

By that argument then the less knowledgeable ought to be treated on a different moral scale than the more knowledgeable.

Precisely.

And who decides? That's the problem with such ideology, everything is left open for interpretation and therefore merely an opinion, totally subjective.

Not so - there is an objectively just option, but it can be marred by subjective error. I don't actually think you've identified a problem, though..

But let's go back to sentient beings for a moment, what animal orders do you consider sentient? I presume the usual zoo animals, rights? Does that include snakes? How about vermin? Okay how about ants, gnats, and all other little critters and creatures? Is it okay by you to step on an ant and crush it, albeit inadvertently? If not, then you must take great care walking in parks and the wilderness for I submit to you that you've killed countless of mother earth's little sentient beings. And so and and so forth, ad absurdium.

I consider sentience on a continuum (possibly a multidimensional continuum, variables pending). An ant is thereby much less sentient and has a much smaller capacity to suffer. Notice I do not judge based on intelligence but capacity to suffer. This does not mean I find a mentally challenged person less morally considerable than an able person - they both have similar capacity to suffer. It does mean that I value a human over an ant, though.

But that's only your opinion and admittedly limited to the current knowledge base you possess at the time. Surely you can see the absurdity of such a goal-shifting moral system, right? I mean how can you even be consistent in teaching it your own kids, never mind passing it down generations.

No, it's not goal-shifting, it's goal remains the same. All that changes is our knowledge. The fact that it allows for new knowledge and will adapt makes it even stronger for lasting through time. Again, it seems you've identified a strength in my ethics, not a weakness.

The bottom line is you live by a borrowed and modified moral code all the while denying the original moral code giver that gave it to in the first place.

The bottom line is that I have yet to be persuaded by this argument, I'm sorry. I don't have the ability to choose my beliefs, I can only believe in what I find sufficiently convincing. I can only hope that is enough. I hope that answers your questions. :]

Like I said, when taken to its logical conclusion there simply is no escaping the fact that morality is inherently objective. Whether or not you're persuaded by it no less diminishes the veracity of the point.

I don't find any truth in that statement. When taken to its logical conclusion, morality might be inherently objective, but even if it's not, it doesn't (to me) make it less valuable. I've yet to be persuaded otherwise due to lack of empirical evidence. I would like to see the argument that morality must logically be objective, however.

Mag,

You are complaining about not having your questions answered. (Although you admit no answer will suffice)
I do appreciate you sharing your story. Just to put if candidly, you sound misrerable. So, how is this new worldview working out for you? How does it better answer the question of suffering?

Isn't that irrelevant to the truth of it?

[MAGSolo]

Mag,

You are complaining about not having your questions answered. (Although you admit no answer will suffice)
I do appreciate you sharing your story. Just to put if candidly, you sound misrerable. So, how is this new worldview working out for you? How does it better answer the question of suffering?

I was miserable for a period. In all honesty it was a tough experience. I will say that it is much easier to cope with suffering and evil from the worldview that this is just the world we live in and these things happen precisely because there is no all powerful supernatural being watching over us. I found it increasingly hard trying to justify why terrible things happen to people when God is supposedly watching over us. Imagine having something terrible happen to you: say you have a daughter that is kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed (just for example). Imagine sitting every day wondering why God didnt protect her, why he allowed her to fall prey to the whims and desires of evil. In reality your daughter being kidnapped, raped, tortured, and killed is no different the a baby zebra being taken from its mother and eaten alive by a lion. There is no God watching over baby zebras protecting them from hungry lions and there is no God watching over our human daughters protecting them from deranged predators. Now we may say that God gives us hope that we will see that loved one that was taken from us in a terrible way, but I do believe it is a false hope. Just like the baby zebra eaten by the lion will never be seen again, those who are taken from us are likely gone forever and when we die, we are all likely gone forever.

I would like to ask you jlay if you believe the bible to be the inspired word of God and if so, why do you believe this?

[MAGSolo]

I would say Buddhism is far more unique than Christianity as there is no sacred or holy entity to be worshiped in Buddhism. There is no God and it doesnt even really espouse the supernatural at all. For you to claim that Buddhism says the same thing as Islam is flat out false as the teachings are very different.

Historically Buddhist thought borrowed from King Solomon that the bible speaks of and from it developed its own, can’t be sure about anything, philosophy. No, it is not superior but basically Old Testament based on human works as it has King Solomon as its source. Buddhism is not unique at all but browed and twisted from King Solomon’s writings on wisdom...

Next,

As for the bible, we just asks you to believe in Christ, accept God’s offer of forgiveness, that’s all.

All the other religions out there only offers a book a set of principles of self inflicted works, activated in varying degrees from making oneself miserable enough to solicit pity, or do this to get that (deal making), or employ certain degrees of self loathing to earn a deal mentioned in their respective writings, or even just by warping/twisting principles/philosophy set forth to justify one is superior so as to avoid God’s offer of forgiveness, just as you so do now.

Only in Christianity does God’s offer forgiveness by grace alone and for those that accept his offer, he indwells those that accept. We follow a living God, not a set of dogmas or creeds. To believe in Christ is more than intellectual assent to the bible. It is bowing to him to govern one’s life, not thru a set of rules on paper but by his personal indwelling witness that says depend on him alone and forsake thy self works.

The bible just teaches and reveals truths about who and what we are compared to who and what God is and does. I like to remind you, Christianity spread without the New Testament so your statements about the bible are moot. It is the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God governing a person is what makes Christianity real.

You look to words only from a page, or at what people do. Any religion can be hi-jack by nefarious people and stained. Christianity is no exception. However, with Christianity, there is an unseen living hand that allows and does correction against those that hijack it. The others world’s religions, no such hand exist.

Your opening page indicates that your premise is that since there is evil in the world that proves that God does not exist? Correct?

The evil, or nefarious attitudes we have about God, are from us. The Lord came to adopt us to become his own. That is why Forgiveness is offered and must be accepted by us. This dual forgiveness is like forgiving someone and then adopting them into your own home. If the other party refuses accepting gracious forgiveness, how would they treat your household?

How are you treating God right now? His offer is to you and you refuse. If you continue to refuse, he will refuse you because such refusal proves exploitation of God’s grace and contempt for his gracious governing power shed abroad in the heart of them that believe in Christ. To believe in Christ involves a lifelong process in this mortal life learning how to be governed by God’s Grace.

The bible reveals this and sets forth a road map so one does not stray. That is how the bible works in the life of a believer in Christ. The indwelling witness is what governs, instructs, guides, protects, and leads us. Instead of slavery, we find freedom. Our kingdom is not of this world, as is yours. We understand we have been adopted. May the Lord God Almighty open you heart to receive His Holy Spirit. Amen...

What is keeping you from accepting God's offer of Forgiveness?
-
-
-

God has not once spoken to me and offered me forgiveness. I cannot accept what has not been offered to me. If you will claim that he offered it in the bible then I will ask again what evidence can you provide that the bible is anything more than words conceived and written by mortal men? I do not believe you are up to the task but do you realize what a powerful think it would be if you could just provide a satisfactory answer for that one question? Do you realize that the only thing you have to do to lead people to Jesus is provide a sound argument for why the bible is the word of God. It would seem to be such a trivial thing and yet not a single one can do it.

[MAGSolo]

Sometimes people who think that have done "nothing wrong", have a hard time accepting forgiveness.

Are you going to get back to me about my question of the bible being inspired by God or have you given up on that?

[PaulSacramento]

Amazing how people "found God" and "Believed in Christ" before there ever was a bible as we know it today...

[PaulSacramento]

Sometimes people who think that have done "nothing wrong", have a hard time accepting forgiveness.

Are you going to get back to me about my question of the bible being inspired by God or have you given up on that?

Since it seems that ANY type of research seems out of the question for you ( though it seems you have done it to "attack" Christianity), I will answer your question.
You asked:
Why I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God, yes?
ANd of course you did NOT answer my question as to how YOU define "inspired by God" Correct?

[PaulSacramento]

Personally, I believe that the writers of the various books and letters and poems in the bible were inspired by God to write about God.
Some, like Isaiah and John of Patmos for example, were under the influence of the HS when they wrote.
Of course being humans and writing to humans, they "put down" what they did to best convey the message from God.
The did that under the context of what they were writing, the genre and to whom they were writing.

[MAGSolo]

Mag, I think you are trying to make it more complicated than it actually is.

You are not even willing to read books when you should to clear your head. You want others to do explain everything for you. nor does the answer is a two liner. I cant convince you if you dont want to be convinced. I wanted to show you the flawed logic you are using, its actually self contradictory, as I pointed out over and over again, you don't want to accept my take on the matter, I'm okay with this.

For the record, I didn't say I agree with your opinion, I don't. I only said that using your logic the Israelites were justified.

By the way did you even bother to look up and read the link I posted, or my posts? No one is making you the bad guy here. You are not the only atheist on this board. Many are here and we get perfectly along fine. What I do not like is when you show no competency to back up the argument you are so insisting upon. I have told you in plain words before, all you have is an emotional appeal. No logic, no construct.

Your argument is simply invalid because of a lot of factors, go back re-read all my posts, when you have spare time, and try to think on it. I am sure you can look up a lot f counter argument for yours as well, and try to study yourself too. May be that would help.

Read Paul capon's "is God a moral monster". Try to understand the the difference between, law and grace, the old testament and the new covenant. Simply put, you want to understand maths but you insist that there be no numbers involved.

And you can assert all you want, but infact there is no objectivity without God, that is a fact, you can not prove otherwise. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion.

It will be much better if you can understand the basics and then try to argument those. Perhaps then we might have a more meaningful discussion, for now, I'm out, as I see this going no where but circular logic. No use in going around in circles. Take one issue stick to it, I wish all, the best.

Wow, so I take the time to thoroughly respond to literally every one of your points, you ignore them, summarily claim that my argument is "invalid because of a lot of factors" and then bow out of the discussion. At least make a an attempt to address the points I made. Thats honestly very pathetic on your part.