Prove to me their's a god that your religion is true.

Originally posted by joesha28
The Argument from Design: Teleological

A watch proves not only a maker, an artificer but also a designer; a watch is amde for a purpose, an evident structure. A thoughtful designing mind was at the back of the watch. So it is in the world that we live in. These "ends" in nature are not attributed to "natural selection" results which are produced without intelligence nor are they "the survival of the fittest". They are the results of a superintending and originating intelligence and will.

Ah, the classic faulty analogy. This analogy improperly classifies the relationship of a watch and watchmaker to the world as it is and some supernatural divine allpowerful creator. We know of the watchmaker because we have empirical evidence of his or her existance. Likewise, we can see the watchmaker make watches. There is no such evidence for a supernatural creator, nor is there any evidence of things being created. The analogy is improper.

Also, here you mistake order for design. It is likely that there is a sense of order in nature, but this does not neccessitate that there is a designer. On a beach, all the large deposits of sand are at the bottom, with smaller grains above that and the very smallest on top. That's a sense of order in nature, but is it designed? No. Just because things operate at certain principles and they are complex in nature does not mean they are designed.

And last there is even a challenge to the idea of order and design, as set forth by Hume. He notes that human beings impose order on a lot of things they see as part of their natural way of thinking. For example, take an inkblot: what's there? Well, a person might see all sorts of things, depending on the shape. But does that mean that the inkblot is anything more than an inkblot? Would anyone be fooled into thinking the inkblot was designed by an intelligent creator?

Simply put, this is no case. You have an improper analogy and an inherent dislike of evolution. This does not prove your case, sorry to say. And the fact that it's parroted by every major creationist and IDer in history means I was more than expecting it from you.

The Argument from Being: Ontological

Most Human has an idea of an infinite and perfect Being. From where did they get this idea? From finite and imperfect beings like us? Certainly not? No...this idea argues for the existence of an infinite and perfect Being: such a Being must exist and not a mere thought.

Ridiculous. This is the old Descartes argument, only mucked up and modernised. I have the idea of a unicorn that has feet of fire, a crown of cold, a tongue of silver and a horn made of mithril. Does that now mean that unicorn exists? No. Pure belief and imagination do not neccessitate being, or this world would be overrun with fantasy creatures.

The Moral Argument: Anthropological

Man has an intellectual and a moral nature, therefore there must be a Creator who is intellectual and moral Being, a judge, a Lawgiver.Man has an emotional nature. Only a Being of goodness,power,love,wisdom and holinesscould satisfy such a nature.These things denotes an existence of a personal God.

It is an unsupported and incorrect assumption that because human beings are capable of goodness, they must have acquired this goodness from God, therefore he exists. More mythos. Also, the very idea of morality could be argued to be a tool of society; where morality was borne out of a need for it in large groups of people trying to survive together. Because if there were only one human being, morality would cease to exist. Does this mean God disappears too?

Conscience of Man says: "do this" and "Don't do that".These things cun be self imposed.They imply of a moral Governer to whom we are responsible.Some things are right...some are wrong. They cannot be right because it pleases and wrong because it displeases.Where did mankind got the standard of right and wrong? Morality is Obligatory, not Optional. Who made it Obligatory? We must believe there is a God or believe the very root of our nature is a lie.

No, this is wrong, wrong, wrong... Morality is not obligatory. In fact, the existance of children who do not inherently know morality, sociopaths, and the fact that animals do not adhere to morality supports this. And since these instances do exist, I suppose I could conclude hastily and mythologically as you do that God isn't there for everyone.

I think you fail to understand the basic and yet drastic difference between Mythos and Logos. Mythos is as the name implies, finding extravagant, spectacular, and supernatural explanations for everyday natural things. The Norsemen believed that earthquakes were caused by a snake dripping venom into the face of Loki, the Egyptians believed that their leader was of the gods himself, the Greeks thought that earth and the cosmos were personalities who bore children that were the titans and gods... etc. In all these cases, none of the claims are truly falsifiable; or if they are proven to be wrong, it is by science and Logos. Another example of Mythos is that God created the world in six days and then needed to rest.

Logos is based on reason and rational thought. It was philosophy that started the seeking of scientific method. Logos looks for natural, ordinary and observable meanings for natural, ordinary and everyday events (Or even out of the ordinary ones). Examples of logos include finding out that the planets revolve around the sun, that the tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, physics, biology, plate tectonics, medical science, the computer you're using... everything that's applicable and useable by humans follows logos somehow.

So I fail to see why you think Mythos is the more convincing argument, unless you just don't want to see otherwise.

Originally posted by joesha28
The Argument from Design: Teleological

A watch proves not only a maker, an artificer but also a designer; a watch is amde for a purpose, an evident structure. A thoughtful designing mind was at the back of the watch. So it is in the world that we live in. These "ends" in nature are not attributed to "natural selection" results which are produced without intelligence nor are they "the survival of the fittest". They are the results of a superintending and originating intelligence and will.

Originally posted by joesha28
The Argument from Being: Ontological

Most Human has an idea of an infinite and perfect Being. From where did they get this idea? From finite and imperfect beings like us? Certainly not? No...this idea argues for the existence of an infinite and perfect Being: such a Being must exist and not a mere thought.

Originally posted by joesha28
The Moral Argument: Anthropological

Man has an intellectual and a moral nature, therefore there must be a Creator who is intellectual and moral Being, a judge, a Lawgiver.Man has an emotional nature. Only a Being of goodness,power,love,wisdom and holinesscould satisfy such a nature.These things denotes an existence of a personal God.

Originally posted by joesha28
Conscience of Man says: "do this" and "Don't do that".These things cun be self imposed.They imply of a moral Governer to whom we are responsible.Some things are right...some are wrong. They cannot be right because it pleases and wrong because it displeases.Where did mankind got the standard of right and wrong? Morality is Obligatory, not Optional. Who made it Obligatory? We must believe there is a God or believe the very root of our nature is a lie.

******* 😐

Originally posted by xyz revolution
WTF? In English.

Originally posted by joesha28
A watch proves not only a maker, an artificer but also a designer; a watch is amde for a purpose, an evident structure. A thoughtful designing mind was at the back of the watch. So it is in the world that we live in. These "ends" in nature are not attributed to "natural selection" results which are produced without intelligence nor are they "the survival of the fittest". They are the results of a superintending and originating intelligence and will

There is no 'scientific' or true 'proof' that God exists. There is historical evidence in the Bible of people that did exist (like Jesus) who did do a lot of things that would support the thesis that God exists but it is up to you to whether you beleive it wasnt just made up or recorded poorly. Religion is about Faith- and Faith is sometimes beleiveing in the unexplainable. I only hope you make the right choice because it is one that effects your ultimate fate.

"Ah, the classic faulty analogy. This analogy improperly classifies the relationship of a watch and watchmaker to the world as it is and some supernatural divine allpowerful creator. We know of the watchmaker because we have empirical evidence of his or her existance. Likewise, we can see the watchmaker make watches. There is no such evidence for a supernatural creator, nor is there any evidence of things being created. The analogy is improper.

Also, here you mistake order for design. It is likely that there is a sense of order in nature, but this does not neccessitate that there is a designer. On a beach, all the large deposits of sand are at the bottom, with smaller grains above that and the very smallest on top. That's a sense of order in nature, but is it designed? No. Just because things operate at certain principles and they are complex in nature does not mean they are designed.

And last there is even a challenge to the idea of order and design, as set forth by Hume. He notes that human beings impose order on a lot of things they see as part of their natural way of thinking. For example, take an inkblot: what's there? Well, a person might see all sorts of things, depending on the shape. But does that mean that the inkblot is anything more than an inkblot? Would anyone be fooled into thinking the inkblot was designed by an intelligent creator?

Simply put, this is no case. You have an improper analogy and an inherent dislike of evolution. This does not prove your case, sorry to say. And the fact that it's parroted by every major creationist and IDer in history means I was more than expecting it from you."

This is Logic...Teologic. After all you pro-evolutionist all say that evolution is fact after lots of studies bla bla bla. Base on the the observation evolutionist concluded on evolution which could be non-existant b4 the start of time. Now that is jumping to conclusion even after a big bunch of study. No matter how hard man use science he can never know everything in the universe. Just because he cun see this cun see that does not mean such things dun exist that is so foolish of him. There is a milky way that leads to another galaxy...scientist has yet to explore that. Will that mean that you guys are gonna say that such thing are existant just because you have not seen it.

"Ridiculous. This is the old Descartes argument, only mucked up and modernised. I have the idea of a unicorn that has feet of fire, a crown of cold, a tongue of silver and a horn made of mithril. Does that now mean that unicorn exists? No. Pure belief and imagination do not neccessitate being, or this world would be overrun with fantasy creatures."

That's your imagination. But the 1st man could not have such thought of a Supreme being is such a person did not exist. That witnessing of such a person is the source of religion...mystic...fantastic imagination. But mind you i'm not saying all of that is right except there was a Source...the Supreme Being.

Think what you want. Its not me whos gunna pay for it. No one is really going to care anyways if you prove god doesnt exist with your poorly definded 'logic' so you might as well quit.

"It is an unsupported and incorrect assumption that because human beings are capable of goodness, they must have acquired this goodness from God, therefore he exists. More mythos. Also, the very idea of morality could be argued to be a tool of society; where morality was borne out of a need for it in large groups of people trying to survive together. Because if there were only one human being, morality would cease to exist. Does this mean God disappears too?"

You are a very conclusive person, aren't you? So you are saying that morality was something that evolved in a Homo sapian? Did the Neanderthal man have it? The chims is the jungles are our coursins..o wow! Running around butt-naked!! Guess the thought of wearing clothes come with evolution! Wesker, why don you sent some clothing to your lookalike coursin of yours living in the jungle.

O yeah...the case of human cease to exist, morality would cease to exist. Does this mean God disappears too? well that's where we come to afterlife.

You are a fool and you realize you gain nothing from this ranting. Even if you claim our evidence that God exists is false, what do you have as evidence to disprove he DOESNT exist. You cant prove that you know there ISNT a god watching and controlling all of everything without first beleiving he exists.

"It is an unsupported and incorrect assumption that because human beings are capable of goodness, they must have acquired this goodness from God..." ---Who said that? We make our own decisions, thats what makes you and me different. We aqquire to ourselves only what we learn but there is still one who must control it.

"Also, the very idea of morality could be argued to be a tool of society; where morality was borne out of a need for it in large groups of people trying to survive together. Because if there were only one human being, morality would cease to exist. Does this mean God disappears too?"
---If there was one human being left who says he wouldnt be a Christian? Morality is not religion- it is basis formed off of religion. God does not "die off" as soon as humanity does.

"No, this is wrong, wrong, wrong... Morality is not obligatory. In fact, the existance of children who do not inherently know morality, sociopaths, and the fact that animals do not adhere to morality supports this. And since these instances do exist, I suppose I could conclude hastily and mythologically as you do that God isn't there for everyone."

Part of it is right...a child jus left to it's own will be much like an animal. But that is the depth of sin. Man is conceived in sin. Sin corrupted his nature. But the thought that you comparing yourself with animals is highly astonishing. God created man good, and after his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. Man is different from animal.

I think you fail to understand the basic and yet drastic difference between Mythos and Logos. Mythos is as the name implies, finding extravagant, spectacular, and supernatural explanations for everyday natural things. The Norsemen believed that earthquakes were caused by a snake dripping venom into the face of Loki, the Egyptians believed that their leader was of the gods himself, the Greeks thought that earth and the cosmos were personalities who bore children that were the titans and gods... etc. In all these cases, none of the claims are truly falsifiable; or if they are proven to be wrong, it is by science and Logos. Another example of Mythos is that God created the world in six days and then needed to rest.

Logos is based on reason and rational thought. It was philosophy that started the seeking of scientific method. Logos looks for natural, ordinary and observable meanings for natural, ordinary and everyday events (Or even out of the ordinary ones). Examples of logos include finding out that the planets revolve around the sun, that the tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, physics, biology, plate tectonics, medical science, the computer you're using... everything that's applicable and useable by humans follows logos somehow.

So I fail to see why you think Mythos is the more convincing argument, unless you just don't want to see otherwise."

who are you talking too?

dam. nvm. I feel like an idiot, you are responding in parts to that other guy.

"No, this is wrong, wrong, wrong... Morality is not obligatory. In fact, the existance of children who do not inherently know morality, sociopaths, and the fact that animals do not adhere to morality supports this. And since these instances do exist, I suppose I could conclude hastily and mythologically as you do that God isn't there for everyone."

Part of it is right...a child jus left to it's own will be much like an animal. But that is the depth of sin. Man is conceived in sin. Sin corrupted his nature. But the thought that you comparing yourself with animals is highly astonishing. God created man good, and after his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. Man is different from animal.

"I think you fail to understand the basic and yet drastic difference between Mythos and Logos. Mythos is as the name implies, finding extravagant, spectacular, and supernatural explanations for everyday natural things. The Norsemen believed that earthquakes were caused by a snake dripping venom into the face of Loki, the Egyptians believed that their leader was of the gods himself, the Greeks thought that earth and the cosmos were personalities who bore children that were the titans and gods... etc. In all these cases, none of the claims are truly falsifiable; or if they are proven to be wrong, it is by science and Logos. Another example of Mythos is that God created the world in six days and then needed to rest."

Nice going in explaining Mythos and Logos. For your info God rested in the 7th day means He rested from the work of creating and not He took physical rest.

"Logos is based on reason and rational thought. It was philosophy that started the seeking of scientific method. Logos looks for natural, ordinary and observable meanings for natural, ordinary and everyday events (Or even out of the ordinary ones). Examples of logos include finding out that the planets revolve around the sun, that the tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, physics, biology, plate tectonics, medical science, the computer you're using... everything that's applicable and useable by humans follows logos somehow."

I see creation by Human...Human creates AI...therefore there must be a Creator of Intelligence like us Humans...logical thinking. So what if He can't be seen? An extraordinary Creation can't be created by a Ordinary Person.

This is Logic...Teologic. After all you pro-evolutionist all say that evolution is fact after lots of studies bla bla bla. Base on the the observation evolutionist concluded on evolution which could be non-existant b4 the start of time. Now that is jumping to conclusion even after a big bunch of study. No matter how hard man use science he can never know everything in the universe. Just because he cun see this cun see that does not mean such things dun exist that is so foolish of him. There is a milky way that leads to another galaxy...scientist has yet to explore that. Will that mean that you guys are gonna say that such thing are existant just because you have not seen it.

Secondly, " No matter how hard man use science he can never know everything in the universe." is called a Hasty Conclusion. You have no evidence or logic for such an assumption, but you proclaim it as a given. While it may or may not be the case that science will not reveal everything, your assertion that it can't lacks validity. Also, even if it were to cap off somewhere along the line, this does not invalidate what it discovers. The human eyes cannot see heat, but does this invalidate everything you see? No. Don't be silly. And science isn't 100% "what you see happening at current". Scientists make and research positions and theories on things based on how they are now, and how they are in current. The difference between those is like observing a burnt candle. You didn't see the candle burn, but you can infer that it was burnt from its current condition. Likewise, if you actually saw the candle burn, you could turn around and identify the previous candle as being burnt. But if you had never seen fire, or never seen a candle burn down, you could not properly identify the burnt candle for what it previously was, nor determine what caused it with any real degree of accuracy.

That's your imagination. But the 1st man could not have such thought of a Supreme being is such a person did not exist. That witnessing of such a person is the source of religion...mystic...fantastic imagination. But mind you i'm not saying all of that is right except there was a Source...the Supreme Being.

And I'm saying your reasoning is faulty, just as it was hundreds of years ago when Descartes bowed before the religious leaders of his day and presented the same argument. Just because humans have knowledge of ideas and things doesn't mean they neccessarily exist. Like I said, I can imagine or think of impossible things, such as omnipotence. But that doesn't mean the knowledge came from am omnipotent being. Likewise, the thought of the unicorn didn't come from the unicorn.

You are a very conclusive person, aren't you? So you are saying that morality was something that evolved in a Homo sapian? Did the Neanderthal man have it? The chims is the jungles are our coursins..o wow! Running around butt-naked!! Guess the thought of wearing clothes come with evolution! Wesker, why don you sent some clothing to your lookalike coursin of yours living in the jungle.

And you're a very dismissive person, aren't you? Firstly, "cousin". That's the proper English spelling. Learn it, love it. If you plan to insult me (Half-assedly, I might add) at least address my argument and try not to mispell "cousin" twice in the same sitting. And when you can disprove my points, please do. You've come to this battle of wits unarmed thus far.

O yeah...the case of human cease to exist, morality would cease to exist. Does this mean God disappears too? well that's where we come to afterlife.

I'm glad you and the other person in Lala-land up there mistook my sarcasm for a serious point and dismissed the actual point with more bullshit.

Part of it is right...a child jus left to it's own will be much like an animal. But that is the depth of sin. Man is conceived in sin. Sin corrupted his nature. But the thought that you comparing yourself with animals is highly astonishing. God created man good, and after his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. Man is different from animal.

Your source? The Bible. Exactly why none of you can ever properly defend your claims. Logic and evidence can't substantiate your arguments, so you paraphrase scripture and ad lib self righteous, anthropocentric nonsense that comes from a book of old and very dubious origins.

Nice going in explaining Mythos and Logos. For your info God rested in the 7th day means He rested from the work of creating and not He took physical rest.

So the word of God is open to interpretation of the Man? Interesting take. Alright. In the beginning, there was darkness. I guess the universe was populated by chimps with dark hair! Our "coursins"!

I see creation by Human...Human creates AI...therefore there must be a Creator of Intelligence like us Humans...logical thinking. So what if He can't be seen? An extraordinary Creation can't be created by a Ordinary Person.

Yes, human creates AI. Good job. Or rather, human beings arrange for AI to exist with already existing natural materials and principles. Human beings actually "create" nothing in this world that is tangible, since it is all already here. An apple and a computer AI both exist in the natural world operating under natural principles, comprised of different combinations of naturally occuring objects. Humans create nothing. They rearrange. So your analogy that "Humans created AI, and it is intelligence; thus God created mankind's intelligence" is faulty. Also, AI does not exist or operate on the same level as human intelligence and is really very limited. Not comparable.
Also, the idea that "Creation" is "extraordinary" is ridiculous. Creation IS ordinary. It's all we know. That would be like saying my dog taking a crap is extraordinary, even though he does it every day. Ridiculous rhetoric.

So yeah, for the second time... QED.

Originally posted by joesha28
"No, this is wrong, wrong, wrong... Morality is not obligatory. In fact, the existance of children who do not inherently know morality, sociopaths, and the fact that animals do not adhere to morality supports this. And since these instances do exist, I suppose I could conclude hastily and mythologically as you do that God isn't there for everyone."

Originally posted by joesha28
Part of it is right...a child jus left to it's own will be much like an animal. But that is the depth of sin. Man is conceived in sin. Sin corrupted his nature. But the thought that you comparing yourself with animals is highly astonishing. God created man good, and after [QUOTE=6206609]Originally posted by joesha28
[B]his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. Man is different from animal.

Originally posted by joesha28
"I think you fail to understand the basic and yet drastic difference between Mythos and Logos. Mythos is as the name implies, finding extravagant, spectacular, and supernatural explanations for everyday natural things. The Norsemen believed that earthquakes were caused by a snake dripping venom into the face of Loki, the Egyptians believed that their leader was of the gods himself, the Greeks thought that earth and the cosmos were personalities who bore children that were the titans and gods... etc. In all these cases, none of the claims are truly falsifiable; or if they are proven to be wrong, it is by science and Logos. Another example of Mythos is that God created the world in six days and then needed to rest."

Originally posted by joesha28
Nice going in explaining Mythos and Logos. For your info God rested in the 7th day means He rested from the work of creating and not He took physical rest.

Originally posted by joesha28
"Logos is based on reason and rational thought. It was philosophy that started the seeking of scientific method. Logos looks for natural, ordinary and observable meanings for natural, ordinary and everyday events (Or even out of the ordinary ones). Examples of logos include finding out that the planets revolve around the sun, that the tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, physics, biology, plate tectonics, medical science, the computer you're using... everything that's applicable and useable by humans follows logos somehow."

Originally posted by joesha28
I see creation by Human...Human creates AI...therefore there must be a Creator of Intelligence like us Humans...logical thinking. So what if He can't be seen? An extraordinary Creation can't be created by a Ordinary Person.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
animals are immoral because they aren't as evolved and developed like we are. We are an older species, moron. So how does this prove god? It proves EVOLUTION. Anyone who has a good sense of logic and isn't close-minded can see that. And god is a description of higher power that makes things happen. AKA, the government.

^That's what you said.

Here's what I said that joesha improperly quoted:

"No, this is wrong, wrong, wrong... Morality is not obligatory. In fact, the existance of children who do not inherently know morality, sociopaths, and the fact that animals do not adhere to morality supports this. And since these instances do exist, I suppose I could conclude hastily and mythologically as you do that God isn't there for everyone."

Firstly, your assertion that animals are immoral because of their stage of evolution begs for proof. Secondly, we are not an "older species", moron. And God is not another name for "the government". When you learn how to reason and debate like a man, come take another stab at this. But for the time being, you're just a pig-headed self-righteous bastard not unlike the Christians you attack.

So your saying god is mythology, not science. I thought you were trying to prove yourself right.

^Again, what you said.

Here's what I said that again, joesha misquoted and you probably took for fact and attacked improperly.

"I think you fail to understand the basic and yet drastic difference between Mythos and Logos. Mythos is as the name implies, finding extravagant, spectacular, and supernatural explanations for everyday natural things. The Norsemen believed that earthquakes were caused by a snake dripping venom into the face of Loki, the Egyptians believed that their leader was of the gods himself, the Greeks thought that earth and the cosmos were personalities who bore children that were the titans and gods... etc. In all these cases, none of the claims are truly falsifiable; or if they are proven to be wrong, it is by science and Logos. Another example of Mythos is that God created the world in six days and then needed to rest."

See? Scroll up. That was me, Quicksilver. I was showing Joesha the Ignoramus the basic concepts behind philosophy and reason. You were speed reading and apparently just out to prove your thoughts on everyone else, thus making you hypocritical every single time you bash a Christian for being... a Christian. Now piss off; you give the rest of us a bad name.

I read your post Wesker...nice catch on the spelling, good job.

You see everyone believe in something. Atheist cannot prove there is no God. Faith itself is unavoidable, even if you choose to believe in yourself.

The scientific method is limited to that is measurable and repeatable. By definition, it cannot speak to issues of ultimate origin, meaning/purpose of life or morality. Science by itself offer moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us natural law works, while telling us nothing of it's origins.

The theory of evolution of life will not make God unnecessary. Even you assume that someday scientists will find missing links to confirm that life appeared and developed gradually over long periods of time, the laws of probability would still show the need of a Creator. The Universe is complex and immense, it did not just happen. Many Evolutionist Scientists are compelled to acknowledge the possibility or even likelihood of an intelligent Designer.

Israel's Exodus from Egypt and those miracles has been witness by million of Jews and Egyptians. The God of the Christian Bible rest His case on events witness in real time and locations. It you really doubt those claims..you could visit those places to check out the evidence for yourself.

The country Israel's future was pre-written...Moses and the other prophets of the bible predicted Israel's unparalleled sufferings and dispersion throughout the world. I believe you are in touch with the current affairs.

There are very few atheist...who seriously thought about life and concluded that there is no God. There are more agnostics, thinking people who say "I don't know if there is a God". "Have you seen God? Have you felt God? Than how do you know there is a God?" are your questions. It's like asking "Have you seen your brains? Have you felt your brains? Than how do you know there is a brains?". You'll probably go "Bullshit Joesha!! Science has shown that man has brains". True i would say, but it took someone else to show a Man his own brains. We are talking the Most Powerful Being in this Universe. It takes only Himself to reveal Himself.

Another thing Wesker, i'm not taking this as a battle of our wits. But rather a battle of your soul and those you are reading our debate(those on your side at least). You don know the real me...neither do i know the real you. But on the day of Judgement we will know each other and than i pray that we would enter the Kingdom of Heaven together.

I know you would say "Bullshit" but i would say Amen....

There are very few atheist...who seriously thought about life and concluded that there is no God.

Christian being self-righteous? Being Self-righteous is a sin. God took a dip on Job for that. Even Christians have to remember that. Christianity is what a man can do for God (Man can never please God). But What God did for Man (a difference between Christianity and other religion).

I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life,and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

This what a Christians' only comfort in Life and Death. A Man can never keep the Law of God. We are prone by nature to hate God. But God created man good, and after his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise; hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. Only by being regenerated by the Spirit of God, we can do good and not inclined to all wickedness. Basically we Christians are justified sinners...saints but only through Christ.

Christians themselves sad to say have to get themselves some christian education. Read your heidelberg/westminister catechism. learn your Apostles' Creed and Lord's prayer. Don't take Christ given liberty for granted guys. Understand your Guilt...learn about the Grace....show your Gratitude.