Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is it ?

If God is the creator of everything that exists, this Universe, and all its concepts, than he surely must have created Evil.

Evil cannot exist without his providing it, or atleast planting the seed for it. He created Lucifer, did he not? Surely he must have known what Lucifer had planned, and how many people were going to Hell....so what was the point to all of it then? Why allow that?

You Christians, Jews, and Muslims have always said nothing exists without God, that everything is dependent on God, so give me ANOTHER contradictory argument, and tell me how Evil exists without God.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Is it ?

If God is the creator of everything that exists, this Universe, and all its concepts, than he surely must have created Evil.

Evil cannot exist without his providing it, or atleast planting the seed for it. He created Lucifer, did he not? Surely he must have known what Lucifer had planned, and how many people were going to Hell....so what was the point to all of it then? Why allow that?

You Christians, Jews, and Muslims have always said nothing exists without God, that everything is dependent on God, so give me ANOTHER contradictory argument, and tell me how Evil exists without God.
Jehovah has said that he is both: Good and Evil, so yes.

Well here's a way to look at it. We'll assume God created Lucifer because God created everything. Or something.

Anyway, so God creates Lucifer, but he also "gives" him free will. So, the power to choose was what ultimately lead to Lucifer's downfall; he chose to go against God. So, did that unknowingly cause evil?

Or do we need to go back further than that? To say that God actually created evil in order to give Lucifer a choice, as some sort of test of Lucifer's loyaly? That seems awfully silly of him...

Why do I feel like I'm in the Matrix?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Is it ?

If God is the creator of everything that exists, this Universe, and all its concepts, than he surely must have created Evil.

Evil cannot exist without his providing it, or atleast planting the seed for it. He created Lucifer, did he not? Surely he must have known what Lucifer had planned, and how many people were going to Hell....so what was the point to all of it then? Why allow that?

You Christians, Jews, and Muslims have always said nothing exists without God, that everything is dependent on God, so give me ANOTHER contradictory argument, and tell me how Evil exists without God.

Lucifer wasn't created to sin like man but he choose to sin. God gave him freedom to choose like he did with all man. Lucifer sinned against God and so God cast him out of heaven.

What is the point for him creating Evil?

Lucifer was supposedly created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God to be good, yet it turned evil and has used its powers to fight God' s plans. It doesn' t make any sense.

For being able to exercise free will and to choose, choices must be available first. One can' t choose for evil when it has not been brought into existence.

As far as I know the story...

Lucifer was one of God's most powerful angels. However, his own desire to be God-like and his own narcissm (sp?) drove him to revolt agaisn't God. Which is the worst choice any Angel can make. In this case envy and desire drove Lucifer to be evil. He made his choice...and paid the price.

Maybe Lucifer was the smart one.

Storms right it doesn't make any sense.

If you just ignore that and say it makes sense, Lucifer seem slike the intelligent one.

I sometimes find this a puzzling question. But, I think that creating Satan and knowing he would go evil increases our extent of free will. It causes us to rely more on faith because Satan can confuse us. Only with Satan in the picture can we truly pick God over the world.

Yes...thats the point.

"Only with Satan in the picture can we truly pick God over the world."

Thats why he was made up.

Originally posted by MyOwnMuse
Well here's a way to look at it. We'll assume God created Lucifer because God created everything. Or something.

Anyway, so God creates Lucifer, but he also "gives" him free will. So, the power to choose was what ultimately lead to Lucifer's downfall; he chose to go against God. So, did that unknowingly cause evil?

Or do we need to go back further than that? To say that God actually created evil in order to give Lucifer a choice, as some sort of test of Lucifer's loyaly? That seems awfully silly of him...

Why do I feel like I'm in the Matrix?

...I didn't think angels had free will


that's why he made humans...am I right?

I think thats how some religions interpreted it.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
...I didn't think angels had free will


that's why he made humans...am I right?

Angels do have free will for many angels followed Satan and choose not to follow God.

No. Thats using secondary logic. Primary sources would do well.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I sometimes find this a puzzling question. But, I think that creating Satan and knowing he would go evil increases our extent of free will. It causes us to rely more on faith because Satan can confuse us. Only with Satan in the picture can we truly pick God over the world. Then why wouldnt he just make Satan and demons in the first place? Why give all angels free will just so half of them could leave?

Maybe God is just in a constant state of confusion.

Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe God is just in a constant state of confusion.

I know I would be (if I were God)

does that mena that we were NOT made in his image?

Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe God is just in a constant state of confusion. Need to get off the chronic

Indeedy.

Perhaps good and evil, indeed opposites of all kinds, are just innate features of the universe - like the laws of physics. God would exist from the beginning, create all things spiritual and physical, yet He would be working within the framework of the way the Universe worked. Good/Evil, the laws of physics, etc. would already be there. God didn't have to create them, they just are.

Originally posted by Alliance
Maybe God is just in a constant state of confusion.

Or maybe God wants to test the loyalty of his creations?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Or maybe God wants to test the loyalty of his creations?

Or perhaps he is testing the actions his creations will take given the minimal use of overt influence.

Or maybe its all just a big hoax that people have taken too far.

Originally posted by Regret
Or perhaps he is testing the actions his creations will take given the minimal use of overt influence.

That's a good one too.

Originally posted by Regret
Or perhaps he is testing the actions his creations will take given the minimal use of overt influence.


Or it could just be that he loves them, and wants his creations to freely love him back.

Perhaps. Any other completely unfounded ideas?

Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps. Any other completely unfounded ideas?

Ummm, God doesn't exist?

That wasn't one of them

I would say the statement "God doesn't exist" fits the definition. Unless there is fact or sound evidence against God's existence, the statement is unfounded.

Cant you sense my sarcasm?
Originally posted by Regret
I would say the statement "God doesn't exist" fits the definition. Unless there is fact or sound evidence against God's existence, the statement is unfounded.
I think there is evidence.

Originally posted by Alliance
Cant you sense my sarcasm?

Yes I just was having fun in the banter.

Originally posted by Alliance
I think there is evidence.

Here is a decent on-line article. It isn't really entirely on this subject, but I thought you might like it.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/anbvslea.html

All the same a list of evidences against would be nice.

Is Evil Independent of God?

Nothing is Independent of God. If something was, then there would be something greater then God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is Evil Independent of God?

Nothing is Independent of God. If something was, then there would be something greater then God.

Not if without God the whole is not greater. If something is independent of God it only means that the whole is greater. But if the whole of the independent from God is not greater than God, there is nothing greater than God, because without God those things that are independent are not greater, only God makes the whole greater.

Originally posted by Regret
Not if without God the whole is not greater. If something is independent of God it only means that the whole is greater. But if the whole of the independent from God is not greater than God, there is nothing greater than God, because without God those things that are independent are not greater, only God makes the whole greater.

Yes, but God + anything would = everything and everything would be greater then God alone.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, but God + anything would = everything and everything would be greater then God alone.

Agreed, but God can't sit on both sides

Everything and God God

Everything not God God

Everything + God = God - God
Everything + God = Undefined
Comparison is not possible.

or

Everything + God = God - God
Everything + God = Nothing
Everything > Nothing

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed, but God can't sit on both sides

Everything and God God

Everything not God God

Everything + God = God - God
Everything + God = Undefined
Comparison is not possible.

or

Everything + God = God - God
Everything + God = Nothing
Everything > Nothing

You cannot say "God can't".

God = Everything. Simple is always better.

Originally posted by docb77
Perhaps good and evil, indeed opposites of all kinds, are just innate features of the universe - like the laws of physics. God would exist from the beginning, create all things spiritual and physical, yet He would be working within the framework of the way the Universe worked. Good/Evil, the laws of physics, etc. would already be there. God didn't have to create them, they just are. I tend to believe this way also...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You cannot say "God can't".

God = Everything. Simple is always better.

It is man that makes such an assumption.

My belief states that God abides by all the laws he gives man. In mathematics it would not work with monotheistic belief to have two Gods.

everything + God > God
everything God + God
everything 2*God

So God cannot sit on both sides without two Gods existing.

Also, if God does exist. He is separate, otherwise worship is unnecessary due to the fact that I am God in that scenario. If I am God, existence and goals are unnecessary, morals and values are unnecessary. Also, it makes God self destructive in that man kills man, if God is self destructive and capable of everything he will destroy himself. If he can destroy himself then he is not greater than all things, because something is required as the tool of such destruction.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, but God + anything would = everything and everything would be greater then God alone. Yes.......

no....????

Originally posted by Regret
It is man that makes such an assumption.

My belief states that God abides by all the laws he gives man. In mathematics it would not work with monotheistic belief to have two Gods.

everything + God > God
everything God + God
everything 2*God

So God cannot sit on both sides without two Gods existing.

Also, if God does exist. He is separate, otherwise worship is unnecessary due to the fact that I am God in that scenario. If I am God, existence and goals are unnecessary, morals and values are unnecessary. Also, it makes God self destructive in that man kills man, if God is self destructive and capable of everything he will destroy himself. If he can destroy himself then he is not greater than all things, because something is required as the tool of such destruction.

Then those two gods would be one God. I do not see God separate.

Can you do mathematics with god anyway?

Originally posted by Alliance
Can you do mathematics with god anyway?

Of course you can, he's a mathematical being it is said, since mathematics is the universal language.

it is said....

Actually mathematically it would be:

(Everything - God) + God > God
(Everything - God) > God - God
Everything - God > 0
Everything > God

of course that assumes that God is part of everything.

You could also go:

God > Everything - God
God + God > everything
2*God > everything
God > everything/2

But that is really kind of nonsensical

The question is really why God has to be greater than everything rather than greater than the sum of His creations.

Isn't ther some sort of international comittee that suppose to define these sort of things?

International society of weights and measurements?

Originally posted by Alliance
Can you do mathematics with god anyway? God is or is in mathamatics..........

http://www.goldennumber.net/

What do you think????

I think you should stop overanalyzing

Maybe you should SEE...

God did not create evil, He created choice.

Love cannot exist without the choice of the alternative.

Sure God could have made us all mindless robots that only obey Him, but our hearts wouldn't know what it means to love, because that's all there is - to follow God. So God gave us all a choice to follow, or not follow Him. And if we choose to follow, that is real love, because we choose God over ourselves, our posessions, the world, etc. God did not create "evil". Evil is simply the absence of God, who is love (1 John 4:16).

Evil is just like cold, it doesn't exist, it just describes the absence of heat. An object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, heat is what makes matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero is the total absence of heat. All matter becomes incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist, it's a word to describe how we feel when we have no heat.

Evil is just like darkness, it doesn't exist, it just describes the absence of light. Light you can study, but not darkness. A small shaft of light can illuminate the darkness. Can you know how dark a space is? No. You can only measure the amount of light present. Darkness is a term used to describe what happens when there is no light present.

Evil does not exist, it is simply the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do not see God separate.

I thought you used the term God in reference to the essence/energy that is existence? I believe you would be correct in saying that everything cannot be separated from everything, and thus Everything cannot be greater than this essence. But that essence/energy isn't God in the sense used by the "God being/personage" religions. It is a different philosophical stance on spiritual existence.

Originally posted by Regret
I thought you used the term God in reference to the essence/energy that is existence? I believe you would be correct in saying that everything cannot be separated from everything, and thus Everything cannot be greater than this essence. But that essence/energy isn't God in the sense used by the "God being/personage" religions. It is a different philosophical stance on spiritual existence.

Yes, I knew that. The Christian way of thinking of God is incompatible with the way I think of God. Kind of like:

2+4=VI

The two number sets have the same meaning but try to divide Roman numerals.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Or maybe God wants to test the loyalty of his creations? is that just the answer for everything? The reason why things contradict god is because he wants to f*ck with you? Is god like Ashton Kutcher or something and when we die will he jump out and say "YOU JUST GOT PUNK'D MOTHERF*CKA!!!!"

Unlikely.

Originally posted by Black Rob
is that just the answer for everything? The reason why things contradict god is because he wants to f*ck with you? Is god like Ashton Kutcher or something and when we die will he jump out and say "YOU JUST GOT PUNK'D MOTHERF*CKA!!!!"


Nah, I think he's more like a personal trainer. He tells us what exercises to do and if we don't do them it's our own dam fault if we end up looking like fat slobs (Hell, whatever)

Dont think you understand what i said i mean why would god purposely try to mislead his own people. Its like its a big game or something.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Is it ?

If God is the creator of everything that exists, this Universe, and all its concepts, than he surely must have created Evil.

Evil cannot exist without his providing it, or atleast planting the seed for it. He created Lucifer, did he not? Surely he must have known what Lucifer had planned, and how many people were going to Hell....so what was the point to all of it then? Why allow that?

You Christians, Jews, and Muslims have always said nothing exists without God, that everything is dependent on God, so give me ANOTHER contradictory argument, and tell me how Evil exists without God.

Such being must be all good and all evil.

Abrahamic God seems rather vengeful. He smights and sends people to eternal suffering for every little thing.
Why do people insist on worshiping something that is so vengefull.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Such being must be all good and all evil.

Abrahamic God seems rather vengeful. He smights and sends people to eternal suffering for every little thing.
Why do people insist on worshiping something that is so vengefull.

not saying that I agree that He is vengeful, but taking that as a premise:

Q. If god is vengeful, why would people worship Him?
A. To stay on the good side of someone who might put them in a very bad place.

Just a guess.

What I really think is that God isn't arbitrarily deciding who goes to Hell and Heaven, but rather just trying to tell us what we have to do to get there ourselves - giving us a roadmap as it were.

Vengence is a natural part of life. You can't expect everythign to be all lemonade and lollipops.

The dichotomous concept of god/devil was created to shove all the bad stuff off on the devil and provide a scary alternative to god. But since the devil is subordinate to god, its not really a true alternative.

God gived the devil his power and his isolation, the ability to lead into tememptation. This is Gods fault. Having a dichotemous view of good and evil is rather naieve imo.

It makes better sense that god/devil is the smae being. A light side/dark side type thing. Abraxas is this type of God. The chirstian God being vengeful is just a sign of the inability to escape the true grey nature of god.

Originally posted by docb77
Perhaps good and evil, indeed opposites of all kinds, are just innate features of the universe - like the laws of physics. God would exist from the beginning, create all things spiritual and physical, yet He would be working within the framework of the way the Universe worked. Good/Evil, the laws of physics, etc. would already be there. God didn't have to create them, they just are.

Bu that would mean that not everything is dependent of God, and therefore he is not the creator of all.

Originally posted by docb77
not saying that I agree that He is vengeful, but taking that as a premise:

Q. If god is vengeful, why would people worship Him?
A. To stay on the good side of someone who might put them in a very bad place.

Just a guess.

What I really think is that God isn't arbitrarily deciding who goes to Hell and Heaven, but rather just trying to tell us what we have to do to get there ourselves - giving us a roadmap as it were.

Then he gave us an ever changing roadmaps, as the standards of good and evil, even those intepretted from the Bible are ever changing throughout History...

Why not just give us a clearer map? The Bible obviously hasn't been working that well in terms of promoting an only-good way of life for those who beleive in it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Bu that would mean that not everything is dependent of God, and therefore he is not the creator of all.

That doesn't conflict with Mormon belief.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then he gave us an ever changing roadmaps, as the standards of good and evil, even those intepretted from the Bible are ever changing throughout History...

Why not just give us a clearer map? The Bible obviously hasn't been working that well in terms of promoting an only-good way of life for those who beleive in it.

Life today is not as it was during Bible times. There are enormous differences between the needs of people today and those in Biblical times. I would hate to have to rely only on what was needed during ancient times today. And I think many of the things needed by us today would have been very unnecessary to those in ancient times.

Plus Mormons believe God still speaks to man.

I think Regret summed up how I would answer.

Let me just add this analogy to his response about the changing roadmap. God's roadmap would have to be perfect, so of course it would also include all the detours for road construction and weather.

Originally posted by docb77
I think Regret summed up how I would answer.

Let me just add this analogy to his response about the changing roadmap. God's roadmap would have to be perfect, so of course it would also include all the detours for road construction and weather.

But the Bible is not perfect. If it were, it would have worked throughout all of history, which it hasn't as a source of authority.

As a source of personal guidance, I have absolutely no objections and actually would encourage anyone to try it out and look to the Bible for whatever they feel they need in thier own lives.

But to enter the Bible into politics and government is a HUGE fkn mistake.....you HAVE to realize that the Bible does not work for everyone...history has proven this, and how many tragedies and human rights violations do we need for everyone to understand this ?


If you trust in the Bible with your heart, then I encourage you to stick to it...it's obviously working for you. But it does not work for everyone, so for you to force your ideals upon those who do not welcome it, is uncalled for and ineffective.

Would you argue otherwise ?

Originally posted by ska57
God did not create evil, He created choice.


Ah, hence Free will, no ?

Why is Choice only divided between being good and evil? There is no neutrality involved? So if I decided whether to drink coffee, or tea, one choice is evil, while the other is good?

Why couldn't God create a world where evil does not exist, yet we have the choice to do whatever "good" we wanted?

You act as if good cannot exist without evil, and that is flawed logic.


Originally posted by ska57
Love cannot exist without the choice of the alternative.

Yes it can. Love can exist without Hate very much. Quite in fact, you cannot Love and Hate the same person at the same instant. It's not possible..you can be intensely angry at the person you love, even dislike the person you love, but you cannot truly hate them.

Likewise, you cannot ever Love someone you have an intense hatred for...as long as that hatred lasts.

Love is simply the force of attraction between two or more sentient beings. It exists in humans and animals alike....you don't need Hate for Love to exist, in fact one REQUIRES the absense of the other.







Originally posted by ska57
Sure God could have made us all mindless robots that only obey Him, but our hearts wouldn't know what it means to love, because that's all there is - to follow God. So God gave us all a choice to follow, or not follow Him. And if we choose to follow, that is real love, because we choose God over ourselves, our posessions, the world, etc. God did not create "evil". Evil is simply the absence of God, who is love (1 John 4:16).


So to be a good person means to be a mindless robot ?

Knowing what it means to love is no where as imporant as the emotion/ state of mind of LOVE itself.

You cannot choose to Love someone...that is the biggest flaw in your argument. Love happens on its own, without our permission. You cannot choose to love your mother or father..you just DO...you cannot choose to love another person...you do or you don't....you cannot choose to love anything...love is not a choice, it happens on its own.

On your last claim, How can God be love when His Word (the Bible) is filled with Hate?





Originally posted by ska57
Evil is just like cold, it doesn't exist, it just describes the absence of heat. An object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, heat is what makes matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero is the total absence of heat. All matter becomes incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist, it's a word to describe how we feel when we have no heat.


If Evil does not exist, then WTF is God punishing anyone for? You make absolutely NO SENSE ~!

So Hate does not really exist....you're even more stupid than I imagined....



Originally posted by ska57
Evil is just like darkness, it doesn't exist, it just describes the absence of light. Light you can study, but not darkness. A small shaft of light can illuminate the darkness. Can you know how dark a space is? No. You can only measure the amount of light present. Darkness is a term used to describe what happens when there is no light present.


Now you're saying Darkness does not exist....so when it's night, it's not really dark.....my tan skin is not really dark....this black stapler next to me is not really black......riiiiiighttttt


Originally posted by ska57
Evil does not exist, it is simply the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.

Then we have nothing to worry about, cuz if Evil does not exist, than neither does Hell.

Thanks for clarifying that....idiot

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But the Bible is not perfect. If it were, it would have worked throughout all of history, which it hasn't as a source of authority.

We don't claim the Bible is perfect. The Bible is not a source of authority. Man isn't perfect, that is why the gospel has not worked throughout history. God is not going to force us to behave how we should, he just says, "you know, this is something you should do." At times he has stated don't do this, it causes problems.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
As a source of personal guidance, I have absolutely no objections and actually would encourage anyone to try it out and look to the Bible for whatever they feel they need in thier own lives.

We agree completely with this, but they may want to try the Bible out without taking all the various interpretations as being Bible. Since there are conflicting interpretations then some are wrong.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But to enter the Bible into politics and government is a HUGE fkn mistake.....you HAVE to realize that the Bible does not work for everyone...history has proven this, and how many tragedies and human rights violations do we need for everyone to understand this ?

The Bible states that all the various commands and such contained therein can be summed up with two attitudes:

1 Love God
2 Love everyone else

Interpretations that do not fit with these statements are wrong. "Tragedies and human rights violations" are not the result of Biblical teachings, they are the result of screwed up interpretation.

Are you saying that these concepts "do not work for everyone"?

When you attack Biblical beliefs you should be more careful to separate interpretation from the Bible itself, not all Biblical religions have the same view on its meaning. Our religion does not believe the Bible has been interpreted correctly since shortly after Christ's crucifixion.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If you trust in the Bible with your heart, then I encourage you to stick to it...it's obviously working for you. But it does not work for everyone, so for you to force your ideals upon those who do not welcome it, is uncalled for and ineffective.

Agreed, no one should be forced with anything. All the same don't speak for others, they can speak for themselves.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Would you argue otherwise ?

If you comment on a Bible subject you are inviting Bible responses. If you attack a Biblical view, expect Biblical defense. You seem to think that those whose views you attack shouldn't attack your views using theirs. If you say life isn't the way you view it, expect people to say that life isn't the way you, yourself, view it.

Originally posted by Regret
We don't claim the Bible is perfect. The Bible is not a source of authority. Man isn't perfect, that is why the gospel has not worked throughout history. God is not going to force us to behave how we should, he just says, "you know, this is something you should do." At times he has stated don't do this, it causes problems.


Many Christians claim the Bible is perfect, my freind.

You just happen to be one of the few rational Christians who exist. My congrats ! If Hell exists, than God is very much forcing us to live a life in his view, because to do otherwise would warrant eternal torment and suffering. How can that NOT be force ?....it's virtual blackmail .



Originally posted by Regret
We agree completely with this, but they may want to try the Bible out without taking all the various interpretations as being Bible. Since there are conflicting interpretations then some are wrong.

It's very very very very very very very easy to intepret much of Biblical content as justifications for hate and violence.



Originally posted by Regret
The Bible states that all the various commands and such contained therein can be summed up with two attitudes:

1 Love God
2 Love everyone else


It depends how you define Love...if you define Love as slaughtering the wives and children of non beleivers, as selling your daughter into slavery, as stoning a prostitute to death, and killing someone for being homosexual....then you would be right....


Originally posted by Regret
Interpretations that do not fit with these statements are wrong. "Tragedies and human rights violations" are not the result of Biblical teachings, they are the result of screwed up interpretation.


"No man shall layeth with another man as he would with a woman...for that is detestable and punishable by death"...

NOW....how the f*ck do you think an Authority figure would intepret that Biblical quote ?




Originally posted by Regret
Are you saying that these concepts "do not work for everyone"?

Yes, I am very much saying that

Originally posted by Regret
When you attack Biblical beliefs you should be more careful to separate interpretation from the Bible itself, not all Biblical religions have the same view on its meaning. Our religion does not believe the Bible has been interpreted correctly since shortly after Christ's crucifixion.

If that is what you beleive, that it renders Christianity INVALID as that is when Christianity began...after his death.



Originally posted by Regret
Agreed, no one should be forced with anything. All the same don't speak for others, they can speak for themselves.

Then I assume you are against enforcing Biblical ideals into politics...



Originally posted by Regret
If you comment on a Bible subject you are inviting Bible responses. If you attack a Biblical view, expect Biblical defense. You seem to think that those whose views you attack shouldn't attack your views using theirs. If you say life isn't the way you view it, expect people to say that life isn't the way you, yourself, view it.



Not so.....I want religious debators to PROVE thier stance...to prove they are right. None have succeeded so far....

Maybe God is what we make IT to be.

That mean it has no concrete basis at all.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Many Christians claim the Bible is perfect, my freind.

You just happen to be one of the few rational Christians who exist. My congrats !

I realize that many Christians claim the Bible is perfect. They, in my opinion are high. Docb77 is Mormon as I am, and would not claim that.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If Hell exists, than God is very much forcing us to live a life in his view, because to do otherwise would warrant eternal torment and suffering. How can that NOT be force ?....it's virtual blackmail .

We do not believe that it is possible to make to a Hell that is worse than this life without a strong knowledge of Truth.

Our belief on who and what makes Hell possible:



God doesn't punish our poor behavior with Hell. God only does not reward behavior that is poor.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It's very very very very very very very easy to intepret much of Biblical content as justifications for hate and violence.

Ease of interpretation does not make the interpretation and justification for hate and violence right.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It depends how you define Love...if you define Love as slaughtering the wives and children of non beleivers, as selling your daughter into slavery, as stoning a prostitute to death, and killing someone for being homosexual....then you would be right....

The offenses you list were punished as they were due to the inability of the Israelites to leave the idols they had worshipped in Egypt. They saw the plagues in Egypt, they saw the parting of the red sea, they saw the cloud that God was in and the pillar of fire lead them. They had a knowledge of the truth and denied it at the base of Sinai. Their punishments were more severe because of their knowledge, not because of their belief. The problem was that throughout the OT God showed his power repetitively, and beyond doubt. Given this knowledge, those of the OT were punished more heavily than others had been. The NT is a clarification of who can punish.





Given this, no man may punish another, because all men sin.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"No man shall layeth with another man as he would with a woman...for that is detestable and punishable by death"...

NOW....how the f*ck do you think an Authority figure would intepret that Biblical quote ?

This follows my earlier comments in this post.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes, I am very much saying that

I am speaking as to these two:

1 Love God
2 Love everyone else

Do you believe that these concepts "do not work for everyone"?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If that is what you beleive, that it renders Christianity INVALID as that is when Christianity began...after his death.

The term shortly is an important term in my statement. We believe that upon the last apostles death the authority to act in God's name also died. The apostles were the Governing body, and acted to maintain proper understanding of the gospel. Upon their death the understanding was not maintained and within 100-200 years most of what we term the "plain and precious truths" were lost from Christian interpretation of the Bible.

Yes, it renders mainstream Christianity INVALID.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then I assume you are against enforcing Biblical ideals into politics...

I believe that people should act according to their conscience. Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Man has since had a knowledge of Good and Evil and has the capability to act appropriately. I do not believe that people can act separate from what they believe though, and as such religion is a part of that persons reasoning system.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not so.....I want religious debaters to PROVE thier stance...to prove they are right. None have succeeded so far....

I do not believe the proof exists that would convince a person that did not want to be convinced. You "want religious debaters to PROVE their stance...to prove they are right. None have succeeded so far...." Have you PROVED your stance...to prove you are right. It seems that you have not succeeded so far....

Right, the bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

If we did have a perfect translation of the Bible, it would only do us as much good as we had the ability to read it.

A map, no matter how accurate, only does so much good if the person reading it doesn't understand scale, or the compass, or the symbols that go into it. Many Christian groups may try to read the bible without checking the compas.

Originally posted by docb77
Right, the bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.
You dont know this. And if your god really cared, wouldn't he give you the correct translation?

Actually if he really cares he'd provide the compass, I happen to believe he's done just that.

But how can you ever interpret the compass if all the numbers are jumbled up or not written clearly?

You need more maps, a map of the US won't do much good if your trying to find your way across town, likewise a street almanac doesn't do much good when planning a transoceanic cruise.

The LDS church actually has the Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible, throw a prophet in the mix and we've got all kinds of maps and direct access to the mapmaker.

Ok so if you have every map possible, they al lead in a general direction, but in many ways. They still can all be wrong.

I'm sorry I'm not going to be here to continue this, we'll pick it up again.

Originally posted by docb77
You need more maps, a map of the US won't do much good if your trying to find your way across town, likewise a street almanac doesn't do much good when planning a transoceanic cruise.

The LDS church actually has the Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible, throw a prophet in the mix and we've got all kinds of maps and direct access to the mapmaker.

How do you know the Mormons have the right map ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How do you know the Mormons have the right map ?

Like I said, you just have to ask the mapmaker. It's a little more involved than that I suppose. There are conditions on getting an answer to that question, the main one being a willingness to follow the map if that's the answer you get. Without that willingness, I suppose God thinks your better off not knowing than knowingly going the wrong way. I guess that gives him more room to give mercy.

Originally posted by docb77
Like I said, you just have to ask the mapmaker. It's a little more involved than that I suppose. There are conditions on getting an answer to that question, the main one being a willingness to follow the map if that's the answer you get. Without that willingness, I suppose God thinks your better off not knowing than knowingly going the wrong way. I guess that gives him more room to give mercy.

A God of Absolute love doesn't need room for Mercy....he or she'd have Infinite Mercy regardless.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
A God of Absolute love doesn't need room for Mercy....he or she'd have Infinite Mercy regardless.

True, but this is a God of absolute Justice as well. God has to at once mete out justice and save as many of His children as He can (be merciful). In the eternal scheme intentions equal or surpass actual actions in getting to where your going, so disobeying a commandment in ignorance might just merit a lesser punishment than willfully rebelling against God's commandments.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
A God of Absolute love doesn't need room for Mercy....he or she'd have Infinite Mercy regardless.

Unless of course he is also a just God. Then absolute love does not serve justice without the presence of mercy. And, God is Just.

Deuteronomy 32:4
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Originally posted by docb77
True, but this is a God of absolute Justice as well.

You said True, so therefore he is NOT a God of Absolute Love by your own account....period.

Justice and Love are not hand in hand. Justice is objective, and Love is not.

Justice consists of Reward and Punishment. Although many say that Love consists of Reward and Punishment as well, NO LOVE can consist of the option of Hell.

The fact that God created Hell, or allowed it to exist, or renders it the punishment for those who don't beleive in him, erases the possibility that he is Love.

LoveOriginally posted by docb77
God has to at once mete out justice and save as many of His children as He can (be merciful).

"As many as he can" implies that he has limits, and is therefore not Omnipotent.


Originally posted by docb77
In the eternal scheme intentions equal or surpass actual actions in getting to where your going, so disobeying a commandment in ignorance might just merit a lesser punishment than willfully rebelling against God's commandments.


The Bible says that Homosexuality is a sin punishable by Death. Does that mean I should kill the next homosexual person I meet by throwing stones at them? Does that mean I should kill myself for being bisexual ?

Hey....on that note...I am Bisexual...does that mean I deserve to go to Hell and have my flesh burnt off, my digestive system eaten by demon maggots, have pitchforks go up my ass, have glass shatter into my eyeballs, and be chewed up my infinite rows of teeth...for all eternity?

According to your Bible, and according to much Christian testiment...That's what I deserve. Do you agree with that ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You said True, so therefore he is NOT a God of Absolute Love by your own account....period.]

Oh, come on. You know what I meant, don't twist my words. A father doesn't love his child any less because he punishes him. God doesn't love anyone less because they ignore his warnings.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Justice and Love are not hand in hand. Justice is objective, and Love is not.

Justice consists of Reward and Punishment. Although many say that Love consists of Reward and Punishment as well, NO LOVE can consist of the option of Hell.

The fact that God created Hell, or allowed it to exist, or renders it the punishment for those who don't beleive in him, erases the possibility that he is Love.

Love

You don't understand the LDS view of the afterlife, do you? There are three main divisions here. The lowest of which is pretty much like the life we're living right now, except better as there won't be crime and such. That is where LDS doctrine teaches us that murderers, liars, and whoremongers will end up, is that too hellish for you? Of course if you live a better life you get a commensurately better reward.


Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"As many as he can" implies that he has limits, and is therefore not Omnipotent.

I think Regret and I explained this one to you in another thread.



Originally posted by Lord Urizen


See above for what I think you'll eventually get if you don't repent. As far as killing you for homosexuality - No, that ended with Christ. I think we covered it in the Death Penalty thread.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You said True, so therefore he is NOT a God of Absolute Love by your own account....period.

Justice and Love are not hand in hand. Justice is objective, and Love is not.

Justice consists of Reward and Punishment. Although many say that Love consists of Reward and Punishment as well, NO LOVE can consist of the option of Hell.

Justice is merely the law that governs all existence, God is not beyond its bounds. Cause and effect. All action has an effect. We don't believe that God creates justice, only that cause and effect exist and are an eternal truth. Justice is the balance, the natural maintenance of cause and effect.

Justice is not reward and punishment, and does not consist of such. Justice is consequence, it is the effect that follows the action. Justice is merely the natural occurrence following an action. Any perceived punishment is due to the unwillingness of God to interfere with our free agency. If we do something he has told us will result in a consequence that is not desired, we are going to get the consequence. God's love and mercy allow us to be shielded from some of the consequences of our actions. God takes some of the consequences that we give him, and we feel very little of the negative if we do this. We term this repentance.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The fact that God created Hell, or allowed it to exist, or renders it the punishment for those who don't beleive in him, erases the possibility that he is Love.

Love punishes temporarily and mercifully. Hell is not temporary, it is eternal, and Hell is not merciful it's torture.

Mercy CANNOT EQUAL Torture...
LOVE cannot spawn Hell.....

Mormons do not believe in a hell, at least not one that man can get to without absolute knowledge of truth. We also do not believe that God metes out punishment. He merely does not always shield us from the consequences of our actions. When he does punish us, it is to lessen our ability to cause ourselves more harm through an increased level of inappropriate actions. We believe that hell is our choices that cause us to be limited in our eternal evolution towards a more perfect state of being. God did not create this limitation, it is merely the byproduct of actions that are inconsistent with the state that is better than our current state. Hell, what we term Hell, is merely an extreme state of limitation. We believe it requires a body to progress/evolve. Satan is a spirit, his angels are spirit, they will never achieve the physical body, they will never evolve beyond what they are now, that is hell to a Mormon. It is not created, it is a state that we end up in due to our inability to reconcile our actions to the actions that are required for progression to a better state.

As Docb77 stated, we believe there are three distinct areas, and the hell Satan will be in. All the same there are an infinite number of layers withing each. We believe that you will go to the place that the behavior you live fits.




Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"As many as he can" implies that he has limits, and is therefore not Omnipotent.

He is not limited. We are limited, and we limit what we allow him to do. He has given us the ability to act as we will, he will not begrudge us the ability to be too stupid to listen. God has limited himself by allowing us to behave as we want to.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The Bible says that Homosexuality is a sin punishable by Death. Does that mean I should kill the next homosexual person I meet by throwing stones at them? Does that mean I should kill myself for being bisexual ?

Hey....on that note...I am Bisexual...does that mean I deserve to go to Hell and have my flesh burnt off, my digestive system eaten by demon maggots, have pitchforks go up my ass, have glass shatter into my eyeballs, and be chewed up my infinite rows of teeth...for all eternity?

According to your Bible, and according to much Christian testiment...That's what I deserve. Do you agree with that ?

Those during OT time saw God in a pillar of fire by day, and a pillar of smoke by night. They saw God part the Red Sea. They saw the plagues. They ate manna from heaven. They saw the Jordan stopped. They saw flames come down from heaven and consume a sacrifice soaked thoroughly with water. They saw the walls of Jericho crumble due to horns blasting outside. They saw an enormous amount of evidence that God existed. They knew he was there, they did not think he might be, they did not think that maybe he existed, they knew. OT punishments were because they knew, we today do not know. At least not nearly to the extent that OT peoples knew. The consequences for their actions were stronger because of their knowledge.

If you believe the punishment you described is what you deserve for that type of behavior then yes, I agree with the hell you describe being a fitting punishment for you behaving that way. If you do not believe that, then I will believe you will go where Mormons believe you will go. We believe you will go to heaven. We believe you will have the capability to continue to progress. We believe that the heaven you go to will be much more enjoyable than the world we live in. We believe you will go where the actions you enjoy will fit. We believe that you will go to a place where the way you behave will allow you to be. You won't go to hell unless you perceive it as hell.

Originally posted by docb77
Oh, come on. You know what I meant, don't twist my words. A father doesn't love his child any less because he punishes him. God doesn't love anyone less because they ignore his warnings.

If a Father sends his child to Eternal torment, then yes he loves him much less...

Or if that's the kind of Love God possesses, than I don't want God's love. It's too extreme.



Originally posted by docb77
You don't understand the LDS view of the afterlife, do you? There are three main divisions here. The lowest of which is pretty much like the life we're living right now, except better as there won't be crime and such. That is where LDS doctrine teaches us that murderers, liars, and whoremongers will end up, is that too hellish for you? Of course if you live a better life you get a commensurately better reward.

The LSD view of the afterlife ? Hallucinations ?

Hmm...I was always taught that Hell was a realm of fire, and that you will get tortured thier eternally. That is what Jesus said according to the Bible...even ultra right insane Christian debator JesusIsAlive claimed that, and he seems to be an expert on the subject.




Originally posted by docb77
I think Regret and I explained this one to you in another thread.

Yes, but it contradicts the Biblical answer.





Originally posted by docb77
See above for what I think you'll eventually get if you don't repent. As far as killing you for homosexuality - No, that ended with Christ. I think we covered it in the Death Penalty thread.

Then what's the point of the Old Testament, if it's laws no longer apply? According to OT, homosexuality is punishable by being stoned, as is being a prostitute. At the same time i deserve to go to Hell because of What I am....according to the Bible.

I still don't get it.....

If the Old Testament no longer applies, then why keep it in the Bible ?

Originally posted by Regret
Justice is merely the law that governs all existence, God is not beyond its bounds. Cause and effect. All action has an effect. We don't believe that God creates justice, only that cause and effect exist and are an eternal truth. Justice is the balance, the natural maintenance of cause and effect.


You are COMPLETELY WRONG on this matter. Justice is NOT universal...it doesn't exist in Animals, it doesn't exist in plant life, it doesn't exist in the microscopic world.

Justice is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT which we apply to our governments, in fear of the dangers of the wild (or Anarchism)

All Action has an effect, but not all effects are Just.

Cause and Effect has nothing to do with Justice.

Cause: A Lion sees a dear

Effect: He eats the dear

Is that Justice?

How about...Cause: A Peadophile rapes and kills a child, Effect: The child dies a horrible death, and no one ever finds out.

Justice ?????

Originally posted by Regret
Justice is not reward and punishment, and does not consist of such. Justice is consequence, it is the effect that follows the action. Justice is merely the natural occurrence following an action. Any perceived punishment is due to the unwillingness of God to interfere with our free agency. If we do something he has told us will result in a consequence that is not desired, we are going to get the consequence. God's love and mercy allow us to be shielded from some of the consequences of our actions. God takes some of the consequences that we give him, and we feel very little of the negative if we do this. We term this repentance.

Justice is Consequence ?

So I cross the street to get something to eat, the light is green. By accident a car fails to stop, and I get runned over. I die from the impact, and the driver who is NOT drunk simply couldn't stop in time.

The consequence of me crossing the street is me dying. Is that Justice ? The driver kills me by total accident....and he gets sentenced to life in prison....is that justice ?

The consequence of a corporate thief who usurps money from his stockholders, then flees to another country with all that wealth. No one ever finds out, and he lives a life of intense wealth, while the others he stole from end up on the street. Is that justice ?

You act as if bad things don't happen to good people, and as if good things don't happen to bad people. How unrealistic.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are COMPLETELY WRONG on this matter. Justice is NOT universal...it doesn't exist in Animals, it doesn't exist in plant life, it doesn't exist in the microscopic world.

Justice is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT which we apply to our governments, in fear of the dangers of the wild (or Anarchism)

All Action has an effect, but not all effects are Just.

Cause and Effect has nothing to do with Justice.

Cause: A Lion sees a dear

Effect: He eats the dear

Is that Justice?

How about...Cause: A Peadophile rapes and kills a child, Effect: The child dies a horrible death, and no one ever finds out.

Justice ?????



Justice is Consequence ?

So I cross the street to get something to eat, the light is green. By accident a car fails to stop, and I get runned over. I die from the impact, and the driver who is NOT drunk simply couldn't stop in time.

The consequence of me crossing the street is me dying. Is that Justice ? The driver kills me by total accident....and he gets sentenced to life in prison....is that justice ?

The consequence of a corporate thief who usurps money from his stockholders, then flees to another country with all that wealth. No one ever finds out, and he lives a life of intense wealth, while the others he stole from end up on the street. Is that justice ?

You act as if bad things don't happen to good people, and as if good things don't happen to bad people. How unrealistic.

I am not saying anything like that. I am saying that there are consequences to behaviors like lying, cheating, stealing, etc. I am saying that your behavior alters you physiologically, and perhaps in a spiritual sense as well. The physiological effects of behavior on brain development through the entirety of life is well documented. There are consequences to behavior. My view of justice is that the consequences must occur given an action. God, can mediate some of these consequences. You standing in front of a moving car and being hit is the consequence of standing in front of it while it is moving. The actions of one do effect others, you describe this with the pedophile example. Yet you cling to the idea that God should not punish individuals that commit actions that effect others negatively, to treat them equally with those that avoid such behavior. You claim that a loving God could not allow them to place themselves in Hell? I am sorry, but the pedophile's victim would not be loved appropriately if God made it so the pedophile did not receive the consequences of his actions. If there were no victim, there would be no need for further consequence upon the pedophile.

Justice is an improper term, and is a construct that man has come up with. All the same it describes the administration and procedure of this universal law.

The portion of the definition of Justice that fits this is:

1 The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
2 Law The administration and procedure of law.

Law as I am referring to it:

1 A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
2 A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand.

Justice does fit the law of consequences as I described it. Justice is not necessarily fairness, it is not necessarily what is best for the individuals involved. Justice is merely the satisfying of the law, and by law I am referring to any law, not just the laws of governance.

This is my view, and it is a logical one. You can disagree, but don't resort to childish statements in an attempt to demean my view. I never stated that there were not consequences that occurred to the innocent. I understand this. The victims of improper action are part of the reason that improper action is not entirely mediated as far as consequence goes. Justice is the administration and procedure of consequence.

I do not "act as if bad things don't happen to good people, and as if good things don't happen to bad people." You misinterpret me. I merely state that in the eternal scheme of things a stronger negative consequence will follow the improper behaviors, and a stronger positive consequence will follow proper behaviors. We, from our limited perspective, cannot see these far reaching consequences.

Please

Don't be an ass just because you don't like what I have stated.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The LSD view of the afterlife ? Hallucinations ?

I have at times been of the opinion that you were worthy of respect. Comments like this lessen that opinion and make me consider that it was in error from the beginning.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hmm...I was always taught that Hell was a realm of fire, and that you will get tortured thier eternally. That is what Jesus said according to the Bible...even ultra right insane Christian debator JesusIsAlive claimed that, and he seems to be an expert on the subject.

And it is one interpretation. This could be metaphorical in its description, it could be symbolic in some way, there are a large number of reasons that this interpretation of the text could be wrong.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes, but it contradicts the Biblical answer.

Explain how it contradicts the Biblical answer. We believe God can do anything. We do not believe that the Bible anywhere states that there are not consequences to action, even if God is the one acting. God is limited by the fact that there are consequences to action, and he has allowed us to choose how we behave. It does not contradict, and if you claim it does show some evidence supporting that claim.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then what's the point of the Old Testament, if it's laws no longer apply? According to OT, homosexuality is punishable by being stoned, as is being a prostitute. At the same time i deserve to go to Hell because of What I am....according to the Bible.

I still don't get it.....

If the Old Testament no longer applies, then why keep it in the Bible ?

The Old Testament is a much more detailed and rigorous set of laws than are required, they are there for those that cannot judge for themselves what is right and wrong. It exists for those that do not understand love, and would err because they cannot grasp the concept of love that would prohibit these behaviors without the need for their description. They exist for those that, without the severe punishments described, would commit the improper behaviors described therein. They were written for those that cannot live up to the standard that is pure love.

Originally posted by Regret
I am not saying anything like that. I am saying that there are consequences to behaviors like lying, cheating, stealing, etc. I am saying that your behavior alters you physiologically, and perhaps in a spiritual sense as well. The physiological effects of behavior on brain development through the entirety of life is well documented. There are consequences to behavior. My view of justice is that the consequences must occur given an action. God, can mediate some of these consequences. You standing in front of a moving car and being hit is the consequence of standing in front of it while it is moving. The actions of one do effect others, you describe this with the pedophile example. Yet you cling to the idea that God should not punish individuals that commit actions that effect others negatively, to treat them equally with those that avoid such behavior. You claim that a loving God could not allow them to place themselves in Hell? I am sorry, but the pedophile's victim would not be loved appropriately if God made it so the pedophile did not receive the consequences of his actions. If there were no victim, there would be no need for further consequence upon the pedophile.]


Keywords for your last statement : If there were no victim. Why couldn't God himself somehow protect all innocent children from being raped in the first place? If he's so powerful, and is our Father and Creator, than it is HIS RIGHT and DUTY to protect those who are not yet ready to face such adult horrors.

Why wait to punish someone ? Why not just prevent it in the first place? Peadophilia, like homosexuality, is NOT a choice...the attraction is forced upon the person who possessed it....If God wants us all to be straight and only be attracted to adults of the opposite sex, then why are other desires implanted into our minds ? Free will and Choice has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.

Is Sexual Orientation changable? Possibly...very much possibly...but chosen? NO WAY ! And for a straight person to argue otherwise is faulty and illogical.



Originally posted by Regret
Justice is an improper term, and is a construct that man has come up with. All the same it describes the administration and procedure of this universal law.]

It is not universal though is what you don't get . There is no justice in the animal world. There is no justice in some nations....evil people get away with doing realllllyyy horrrible things, innocent people suffffer for no reason without justice, and really good people sometimes get NO REWARDS for thier actions.

How can you say Justice is natural and universal ? We made that concept up !

Originally posted by Regret
The portion of the definition of Justice that fits this is:

1 The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
2 Law The administration and procedure of law.]


But you do realize that Law always changes, right? And you must also realize that what is "justice" today is altered tomorrow...not literally, but throughout Human History the definitions of Justice are EVERY changing...back then it was "tooth for a tooth, eye for an eye" today its "turn the other cheek" or whatever....there is no fixed standard for justice.

Originally posted by Regret
Law as I am referring to it:

1 A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
2 A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand.]

Again, just ur opinion, your belief, your right to think, and not my place to violate.

Originally posted by Regret
Justice does fit the law of consequences as I described it. Justice is not necessarily fairness, it is not necessarily what is best for the individuals involved. Justice is merely the satisfying of the law, and by law I am referring to any law, not just the laws of governance.]

What about the Law of Gravity? What about the Laws of Physics ? Is it Justice when a meteor crashes on a planet, or when a star goes super nova ?

Originally posted by Regret
This is my view, and it is a logical one. You can disagree, but don't resort to childish statements in an attempt to demean my view. I never stated that there were not consequences that occurred to the innocent. I understand this. The victims of improper action are part of the reason that improper action is not entirely mediated as far as consequence goes. Justice is the administration and procedure of consequence.]

So your saying that Universal Justice does not see "innocent" or "guilty"..it only sees "punishment"....so I am guessing you beleive Justice is blind.

If that's the case, and if your God is a God of Justice, then your God is blind as well.

Originally posted by Regret
I do not "act as if bad things don't happen to good people, and as if good things don't happen to bad people." You misinterpret me. I merely state that in the eternal scheme of things a stronger negative consequence will follow the improper behaviors, and a stronger positive consequence will follow proper behaviors. We, from our limited perspective, cannot see these far reaching consequences.]

If none of us can see this, then you cannot claim it as fact.

Originally posted by Regret
Please ]

Don't go there Girlfreind ! argue Mmmhmmm !

Originally posted by Regret
Don't be an ass just because you don't like what I have stated.

Generally, I AM an Ass...but that's not the point. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like what you said...What you are saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me so far...

Originally posted by Regret
I have at times been of the opinion that you were worthy of respect. Comments like this lessen that opinion and make me consider that it was in error from the beginning.

I couldn't care less if you respect me or not. And isn't that clearly what you said ? LSD ?



Originally posted by Regret
And it is one interpretation. This could be metaphorical in its description, it could be symbolic in some way, there are a large number of reasons that this interpretation of the text could be wrong.

Then whose to say what parts of the Bible should be taken literally or metaphorically? Mainstream Christians in general tend to nitpick what they like, and disregard what's inconvienent for themselves.



Originally posted by Regret
Explain how it contradicts the Biblical answer. We believe God can do anything. We do not believe that the Bible anywhere states that there are not consequences to action, even if God is the one acting. God is limited by the fact that there are consequences to action, and he has allowed us to choose how we behave. It does not contradict, and if you claim it does show some evidence supporting that claim.



The Biblical Answer is that God is all knowing and all powerful, yet at the same time he cannot do so many things. You already stated how he limitted himself through human limits...however, the very fact that he has limits means he is not omnipotent.

The very definition of Omnipotent (or all powerful as the Bible claims) is being able to do WHATEVER YOU WANT.

If God cannot see the future, or if he cannot save a child from a child molestor cuz its against free will, if he cannot bar the devil from temptating us, if he cannot exclude us from evil, and if he cannot make his presense absolutely known and undeniable to us, then he is not omnipotent.

When I ask people why doesn't God make this world a more peaceful place, they usually answer "He's trying"

The very fact that he's trying means he can't just do it...an all powerful, all knowing God can find infinite ways around Free Will....if he can't do it, then he's not all powerful. Period.




Originally posted by Regret
The Old Testament is a much more detailed and rigorous set of laws than are required, they are there for those that cannot judge for themselves what is right and wrong. It exists for those that do not understand love, and would err because they cannot grasp the concept of love that would prohibit these behaviors without the need for their description. They exist for those that, without the severe punishments described, would commit the improper behaviors described therein. They were written for those that cannot live up to the standard that is pure love.


And what is pure Love ? Pure love cannot consist of religious or personal bias. Pure Love can only consist of Love bias, and it's not the same thing as religious bias.

Religion is one of the many catalysts for war and hatred. You KNOW this so don't deny it. History has already proven religion to be the spark for such horrible things. Religion causes more disunity than unity..has religion created world peace ?NO NOT FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS...ITS NOT WORKING...

PURE LOVE lacks judgement, it lacks selfishness, it lacks criticism, it lacks all other bias. When you love someone with pure love, the love is unconditional, and it dies for no reason. Love does NOT envy, punish, restrict, control and especially does NOT HATE.

Love defends, sets free, unifies, tolerates, and ENJOYS.......If you don't get that, then you don't know what Love actually is.

No one needs the Old Testament to know what love is...in FACT you can sure as hell find LOADS of HATRED in it, as you can in many sections of the Bible ...can you find Love in the Bible? Ofcourse....but it's not pure love..pure love cannot be mixed with any sort of Hatred whatsoever...

And on a last note...a Jealous God is not a God of Love....love does not envy.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Keywords for your last statement : If there were no victim. Why couldn't God himself somehow protect all innocent children from being raped in the first place? If he's so powerful, and is our Father and Creator, than it is HIS RIGHT and DUTY to protect those who are not yet ready to face such adult horrors.

Why wait to punish someone ? Why not just prevent it in the first place? Peadophilia, like homosexuality, is NOT a choice...the attraction is forced upon the person who possessed it....If God wants us all to be straight and only be attracted to adults of the opposite sex, then why are other desires implanted into our minds ? Free will and Choice has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.

Because the pedophile has the same rights as I do. Why not imprison people based on the probability of them breaking the law? Why not? It is the same. Until the act is committed any action is not justified.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Is Sexual Orientation changable? Possibly...very much possibly...but chosen? NO WAY ! And for a straight person to argue otherwise is faulty and illogical.

There is no evidence for this. It is just as likely that it is chosen. Are you claiming that homosexuality is such that a person would not choose to be homosexual? If so, then it should be considered a disease and we should isolate individuals with this condition and attempt to cure them. Your words, not mine, say that one would not choose to be homosexual.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It is not universal though is what you don't get . There is no justice in the animal world. There is no justice in some nations....evil people get away with doing realllllyyy horrrible things, innocent people suffffer for no reason without justice, and really good people sometimes get NO REWARDS for thier actions.

How can you say Justice is natural and universal ? We made that concept up !

But you do realize that Law always changes, right? And you must also realize that what is "justice" today is altered tomorrow...not literally, but throughout Human History the definitions of Justice are EVERY changing...back then it was "tooth for a tooth, eye for an eye" today its "turn the other cheek" or whatever....there is no fixed standard for justice.

Again, just ur opinion, your belief, your right to think, and not my place to violate.

What about the Law of Gravity? What about the Laws of Physics ? Is it Justice when a meteor crashes on a planet, or when a star goes super nova ?

So your saying that Universal Justice does not see "innocent" or "guilty"..it only sees "punishment"....so I am guessing you beleive Justice is blind.

If that's the case, and if your God is a God of Justice, then your God is blind as well.

Yes, it is my opinion, it is my belief, it is my view. That is what we are discussing.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If none of us can see this, then you cannot claim it as fact.

Never did claim it as fact. It is my belief. And our beliefs are what we were discussing.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Generally, I AM an Ass...but that's not the point. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like what you said...What you are saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me so far...

And so it won't. I have stated fairly clearly imo, it is not an error on my end as far as your understanding. It may be a waste of time trying to restate it again and again in the hopes that you would grasp the concept, it is either beyond your understanding or you are being to narrow minded to understand a view that is not your own. IMO it is the latter.

Urizen, the bottom line is that yes homosexuality is a sin in Biblical religions and yes, if Biblical religions are correct those that practice it will go to a place that is not the best possibility for them. Yes, the Bible condemns many actions, and it is not necessarily fair from many peoples perspectives. Just get over it and don't talk about it with Christians if you can't look past your own views far enough to at least understand and respect other people's views.

I won't respond further as it seems to be a waste of time conversing with you on the subject. I enjoyed our last discussion, but you seem to be too emotionally tied to this subject to discuss it in a manner I would enjoy.

Originally posted by Regret
Because the pedophile has the same rights as I do. Why not imprison people based on the probability of them breaking the law? Why not? It is the same. Until the act is committed any action is not justified.


Why does God implant the desire, or allow the devil to implant that unique and highly destructive desire ?

If all evil flows from Satan, then why does God allow SATAN to violate our free will with temptation ?


Originally posted by Regret
There is no evidence for this. It is just as likely that it is chosen. Are you claiming that homosexuality is such that a person would not choose to be homosexual? If so, then it should be considered a disease and we should isolate individuals with this condition and attempt to cure them. Your words, not mine, say that one would not choose to be homosexual.


Dude...I AM BISEXUAL..and I am telling you I never chose it. I am a PRIMARY SOURCE and the matter, and if you choose to ignore my testiment than you are even more ignorant and bias then I ever imagined.

Homosexuality was once considered a disease, until last century when Psychologists removed it from the list and deemed in natural. Animals enact homosexual and bisexual activity, so you cannot claim it is unnatural.

You cannot choose to be attracted to someone you are not attracted to...There are GAY VIRGINS.

I was BISEXUAL before I lost my virginity....how the FCK could i CHOOSE to be something I never asked to be?

What ffkn part of it don't you understand ?


Originally posted by Regret
Yes, it is my opinion, it is my belief, it is my view. That is what we are discussing.



Your opinion is not Fact...that is my point..thanks for verifying.


Originally posted by Regret
Never did claim it as fact. It is my belief. And our beliefs are what we were discussing.

So lets discuss.....


Originally posted by Regret
And so it won't. I have stated fairly clearly imo, it is not an error on my end as far as your understanding. It may be a waste of time trying to restate it again and again in the hopes that you would grasp the concept, it is either beyond your understanding or you are being to narrow minded to understand a view that is not your own. IMO it is the latter.


No...like the Bible your arguments supply an array of contradictions and uncertainties.

Until your arguments are consistant and can be supported with evidense OTHER tahn the Bible, I may begin to respect and understand them

Originally posted by Regret
Urizen, the bottom line is that yes homosexuality is a sin in Biblical religions and yes, if Biblical religions are correct those that practice it will go to a place that is not the best possibility for them. Yes, the Bible condemns many actions, and it is not necessarily fair from many peoples perspectives. Just get over it and don't talk about it with Christians if you can't look past your own views far enough to at least understand and respect other people's views.


This is my point exactly...this is how I see it:

I am telling you from personal knowledge, that being Bisexual or Homosexual is not a choice. It is what a person is, the same way you are heterosexual and did not choose it...its just what you are, your attractions came to you..you did not choose ur attractions.

Since your religion claims that Homosexuality is Sin, and that Sin is intentional evil, then Homosexuality cannot be a sin since I KNOW its not a choice....

How could u know that homosexuality or bisexuality is chosen, when you are not one yourself ? Can you MAKE yourself like other men? If you can, I'd love to know how you'd be capable of it .

Ne ways, point is, i know the fact that homosexuality is not chosen...if another source (even the Bible) claims that homosexuality is chosen, then I know for sure that that source is wrong.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And isn't that clearly what you said ? LSD ?


Pay attention. We said LDS. You said LSD. See the difference? LDS/LSD. It stands for Latter Day Saints.

Show some respect man.

Originally posted by docb77
Pay attention. We said LDS. You said LSD. See the difference? LDS/LSD. It stands for Latter Day Saints.

Show some respect man.





cry

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
cry

I forgive you.

Originally posted by docb77
I forgive you.


clap

I believe that if there is a God, or a Deity, or many, (etc.), that "Evil" must at once be independent of It/them, and yet at the same time congruent with It/them.

That is to say, if there is a God, then while It may not be able to fully comprehend "Evil," it must in origin have been created by It.

Or maybe I'm rambling?....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then you are equaliting Evil with Nuetrality.

Evil is a very real and very negative thing....it cannot exist SIMPLY due to God's absense.

A lot of debators will argue that evil is the absense of God, and that sounds like bullshit to me. The absense of God would equal nothingness...not evil.

Evil is NOT a nuetrality, or a simple negation of good...evil is its own thing, it consists of much diversity in the forms of cruelty, hatred, and sadism. Evil is a very real thing, and is due to MORE than just an absense of a diety...

But you are making an assumption there as well. You assume that there is such a thing as neutrality. Is there a state between light and dark? there is light and less light, but in the absence of light there is complete darkness. There is no neutral state. God and Evil could be similar. You can have some varying level of influence from God, or none. Personally I think that very few people have zero influence, eve atheists.

Originally posted by docb77
But you are making an assumption there as well. You assume that there is such a thing as neutrality.

Neutrality exists very much so.



Originally posted by docb77
Is there a state between light and dark?

Yes. Midtone.

Between Black and White ? Grey !

Between Night and Day? Noon !

Originally posted by docb77
there is light and less light, but in the absence of light there is complete darkness.

So I take it you're saying there is good and less good, but in the absense of good there is only evil ?

How blind of you. Whose to say that light is good and dark is evil ? We NEED BOTH light and dark on this world. We NEED night and day, we need black and white.

The absense of good is NOT evil....the absense of good is simply the absense of good. Evil is on the opposite end of that spectrum.

You imply that EVERY choice consists of good and evil. If I choose whether or not to drink tea or coffee, is there any good and evil involved in my choice ?



Originally posted by docb77
There is no neutral state.


There are plentitudes of neutral states. Indifference, Ignorance, accidental actions, mistakes and so on.


Originally posted by docb77
God and Evil could be similar. You can have some varying level of influence from God, or none. Personally I think that very few people have zero influence, eve atheists.

If it is indeed Fact that God is pure Love, then I can only assume that most people, whether they like it or not, have him within them.

However, the way the Bible represents God, and the way many Christians represent God, I do not find him to consist of pure love.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Neutrality exists very much so.


Yes. Midtone.

Between Black and White ? Grey !

Between Night and Day? Noon !



So I take it you're saying there is good and less good, but in the absense of good there is only evil ?

How blind of you. Whose to say that light is good and dark is evil ? We NEED BOTH light and dark on this world. We NEED night and day, we need black and white.

The absense of good is NOT evil....the absense of good is simply the absense of good. Evil is on the opposite end of that spectrum.

You imply that EVERY choice consists of good and evil. If I choose whether or not to drink tea or coffee, is there any good and evil involved in my choice ?






There are plentitudes of neutral states. Indifference, Ignorance, accidental actions, mistakes and so on.




If it is indeed Fact that God is pure Love, then I can only assume that most people, whether they like it or not, have him within them.

However, the way the Bible represents God, and the way many Christians represent God, I do not find him to consist of pure love.

just to point out - noon is still day.

There is no neutral point between light and darkness. Light is an electromagnetic wave/particle that is either there or not.

white and black - if we're talking about art or pigments white is the absence of color, black the mixture of all of them. That makes gray just a lesser amount of pigment. there is either color or not.

You point out that whether or not you choose to drink coffee is neither good nor evil. Correct, but that's not because there is a neutral. It is because it isn't on the same scale. It doesn't belong to the Good/evil scale, perhaps the important/trivial scale.

Now, I never said that there is no neutral in anything. Neutrality with regards to certain things do exist, but there are also things that either are or aren't. Light and Dark are one example. I just suggested that Good and evil might be another.

Originally posted by docb77
just to point out - noon is still day.

There is no neutral point between light and darkness. Light is an electromagnetic wave/particle that is either there or not.

white and black - if we're talking about art or pigments white is the absence of color, black the mixture of all of them. That makes gray just a lesser amount of pigment. there is either color or not.

You point out that whether or not you choose to drink coffee is neither good nor evil. Correct, but that's not because there is a neutral. It is because it isn't on the same scale. It doesn't belong to the Good/evil scale, perhaps the important/trivial scale.

Now, I never said that there is no neutral in anything. Neutrality with regards to certain things do exist, but there are also things that either are or aren't. Light and Dark are one example. I just suggested that Good and evil might be another.



If I kill a man to save my mother's life, is that good, evil, or nuetral ?

If I am a woman, and have an Abortion due to the fact that the Foetus is threatening my life (its suck in my fallopian tubes), is my act to abort good, evil, or neutral ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If I kill a man to save my mother's life, is that good, evil, or nuetral ?

If I am a woman, and have an Abortion due to the fact that the Foetus is threatening my life (its suck in my fallopian tubes), is my act to abort good, evil, or neutral ?

Kill in defense of your mother - Good

Aborting an Ectopic pregnancy - Good

No neutrality there.

Originally posted by docb77
Kill in defense of your mother - Good

Aborting an Ectopic pregnancy - Good

No neutrality there.



What If I killed my own father to save my mother ?

Despite thte pregancy risking my life, I am still killing an innocent life.

I don't thnk a "good" exists here, just neutral.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What If I killed my own father to save my mother ?

Despite thte pregancy risking my life, I am still killing an innocent life.

I don't thnk a "good" exists here, just neutral.

In what situation would killing your father save your mother? Your father attacking?

Defending your mother still good. The death of the attacker, regardless of who it is, is regretable, but does not change the inherent value of the action of defense.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is no way the child could be carried to term. It would be a case of end the pregnancy or both people die. Still Good.

Saving lives = good

Now, if there were a way to save both lives in either situation it would be better, or more good, but saving lives is always good.

Originally posted by docb77
In what situation would killing your father save your mother? Your father attacking?

Defending your mother still good. The death of the attacker, regardless of who it is, is regretable, but does not change the inherent value of the action of defense.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is no way the child could be carried to term. It would be a case of end the pregnancy or both people die. Still Good.

Saving lives = good

Now, if there were a way to save both lives in either situation it would be better, or more good, but saving lives is always good.


I defended my mother from my father. My father attacks my mother, because my mother tried to kill him first. I didn't see her try to do that, i just walk in I see my father choking my mother, and I stab him to death, unware of the fact that my mother attacked him first.

Was my act good or evil ?


There are two children hanging over a cliff....one of them is my son, and the other is my best freind's son. They are both just about to lose thier grip on the edge, and they are ten feet apart from each other.

I run to save my child first, but as I grab my son's hand, the other kid falls and gets crushed at the bottom of the mountain.

Was my act good or evil ?

Actually Docb77, a more difficult one:


I am walking by myself on the street from a baseball game. It's late at night, and I have my bat with me.

I see strange people lookin at me. I don't trust any of them, and this neighborhood is one of high crime. I start to get scared.

Someone GRABS my shoulder from behind in a really dark area, and i get terrified. I take my bat and start swinging, bashing that person's head open.

I see that person dead on the floor. I put my face forward to get a better look at who it was...

It was my own grandmother dead on the ground. I thought she was a mugger or some kind of criminal trying to attack me from behind....

I just killed her by accident.




Was my action good or evil ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I defended my mother from my father. My father attacks my mother, because my mother tried to kill him first. I didn't see her try to do that, i just walk in I see my father choking my mother, and I stab him to death, unware of the fact that my mother attacked him first.

Was my act good or evil ?


There are two children hanging over a cliff....one of them is my son, and the other is my best freind's son. They are both just about to lose thier grip on the edge, and they are ten feet apart from each other.

I run to save my child first, but as I grab my son's hand, the other kid falls and gets crushed at the bottom of the mountain.

Was my act good or evil ?

Is good defined by your intentions or by the outcome?

I still say that both actions are good, definitely not the best possible outcome, but good nevertheless.

Originally posted by docb77
Is good defined by your intentions or by the outcome?

I still say that both actions are good, definitely not the best possible outcome, but good nevertheless.


So It was GOOD that I stabbed my father, even though he didn't deserve it.

It was also GOOD that I didn't save my best freind's child, even when I COULD HAVE....

Your arguments make NO SENSE...i thnk your starting to lose your stance....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So It was GOOD that I stabbed my father, even though he didn't deserve it.

It was also GOOD that I didn't save my best freind's child, even when I COULD HAVE....

Your arguments make NO SENSE...i thnk your starting to lose your stance....

Lol, context plays a role in most things.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So It was GOOD that I stabbed my father, even though he didn't deserve it.

It was also GOOD that I didn't save my best freind's child, even when I COULD HAVE....

Your arguments make NO SENSE...i thnk your starting to lose your stance....

No, you weren't listening. It was good that you loved your mother enough to defend her.

It was good that you saved your own child.

My arguments make sense enough if you try to see what's behind them.

Regret is right, context means everything.

Originally posted by docb77
No, you weren't listening. It was good that you loved your mother enough to defend her.

It was good that you saved your own child.

My arguments make sense enough if you try to see what's behind them.

Regret is right, context means everything.


So It wasn't evil that I stabbed my father who loves me ?

It wasn't evil that I ignored my freind's son when he was in trouble ?

The good intention cancels out the evil action?

Answer my OTHER scenario.....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Actually Docb77, a more difficult one:


I am walking by myself on the street from a baseball game. It's late at night, and I have my bat with me.

I see strange people lookin at me. I don't trust any of them, and this neighborhood is one of high crime. I start to get scared.

Someone GRABS my shoulder from behind in a really dark area, and i get terrified. I take my bat and start swinging, bashing that person's head open.

I see that person dead on the floor. I put my face forward to get a better look at who it was...

It was my own grandmother dead on the ground. I thought she was a mugger or some kind of criminal trying to attack me from behind....

I just killed her by accident.




Was my action good or evil ?



How about this ? Doc..Regret...Good evil or neutral ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Actually Docb77, a more difficult one:


I am walking by myself on the street from a baseball game. It's late at night, and I have my bat with me.

I see strange people lookin at me. I don't trust any of them, and this neighborhood is one of high crime. I start to get scared.

Someone GRABS my shoulder from behind in a really dark area, and i get terrified. I take my bat and start swinging, bashing that person's head open.

I see that person dead on the floor. I put my face forward to get a better look at who it was...

It was my own grandmother dead on the ground. I thought she was a mugger or some kind of criminal trying to attack me from behind....

I just killed her by accident.


Was my action good or evil ?


How about this ? Doc..Regret...Good evil or neutral ?

Evil. It was not self defense, it was you acting out of fear without provocation. It would be less than murder 1, and would be termed manslaughter. It would be a lesser degree of evil than premeditated murder. This would be due to the fact that all that occurred was the evil of the action, not the evil of the intent, or in other words, your thoughts would not aid in the condemning of your action.

Originally posted by Regret
Evil. It was not self defense, it was you acting out of fear without provocation. It would be less than murder 1, and would be termed manslaughter. It would be a lesser degree of evil than premeditated murder. This would be due to the fact that all that occurred was the evil of the action, not the evil of the intent, or in other words, your thoughts would not aid in the condemning of your action.




What if I have a history of being mugged in this city ? On top of that my grandmother was wearing gloves, and she grabbed me hard (probably because she was running after me or whatever)

I couldn't see her clearly, and it felt like a real mugging...So i swing with strong impulse...

What I did was truly evil, even though my INTENT was self defense ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What if I have a history of being mugged in this city ? On top of that my grandmother was wearing gloves, and she grabbed me hard (probably because she was running after me or whatever)

I couldn't see her clearly, and it felt like a real mugging...So i swing with strong impulse...

What I did was truly evil, even though my INTENT was self defense ?

If it were truly self defense, then it would be mediated by such. Killing is evil. Context mediates the degree to which it is evil. Killing as a self defense mechanism should be the stopping of a killing as well as a killing. They equal out if the intent is pure. Self defense is mediated by intent and context.

I have a friend, he was walking down an alley, a man came upon him with a knife. My friend grabbed his hand turned around and plunged the knife into the other man's stomach. My friend then removed the knife and plunged it again a few times. He was punished because after he gained control of the weapon, and had stopped the assailant with the first stab, he became the assailant. His action was evil upon removing the knife because further action was not required.

Thanks for taking over for me Regret.

As far as the scenario goes Urizen, I'm pretty much in agreement with Regret. Although I do think that it illustrates that you do not have to be evil to commit an evil act.

I think that God takes the intention into account.

Besides, isn't the feeling of realizing what you did going to be pretty bad punishment anyways if you're a good person.

Originally posted by docb77
Thanks for taking over for me Regret.

As far as the scenario goes Urizen, I'm pretty much in agreement with Regret. Although I do think that it illustrates that you do not have to be evil to commit an evil act.

I think that God takes the intention into account.

Besides, isn't the feeling of realizing what you did going to be pretty bad punishment anyways if you're a good person.



The point is the INTENT was good, but the ACTION was bad.....

Therefore the entire scenario is NEUTRAL....

I would NEVER kill my own grandmother otherwise...if i had known it were her, that would have not even happened. If she would have not grabbed me SO HARD from behind, in the DARK, i would have not thought her a mugger or rapist or whatever.....

YET, despite the INTENT to defend myself, she fell and is dead....(in this scenario not in real life)

All it took was ONE SWING to make that happen. And the swing was DONE out of fear and self defense, NOT out of malice or cruelty.



What happened in this scenario was HORRIBLE, but the INTENT for evil was NOT THERE....

Therefore, the act is NEUTRAL......

And if you STILL CAN'T see that Regret and Docb77...

If you're Point of View is SO BLACK AND WHITE, then explain this:



A person with multiple personality disorder ends up killing her husband.

She was not in control over her own mind and body, because one of her alternate egos resurfaced and took control. She comes back to reality, only to find that one of her alters killed someone she loved.



She is NOT responsible for what happened. An Alternate Personality is a result of traumatic child abuse (usually sexual abuse). She is technically mentally impaired, and in no way can be held responsible for what her alternate egos DO....


The Murder/Manslaughter of her Husband......good or evil ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The point is the INTENT was good, but the ACTION was bad.....

Therefore the entire scenario is NEUTRAL....

I would NEVER kill my own grandmother otherwise...if i had known it were her, that would have not even happened. If she would have not grabbed me SO HARD from behind, in the DARK, i would have not thought her a mugger or rapist or whatever.....

YET, despite the INTENT to defend myself, she fell and is dead....(in this scenario not in real life)

All it took was ONE SWING to make that happen. And the swing was DONE out of fear and self defense, NOT out of malice or cruelty.



What happened in this scenario was HORRIBLE, but the INTENT for evil was NOT THERE....

Therefore, the act is NEUTRAL......

The act was not neutral, the intent was not evil, the act was. They offset, making the scenario neutral. Your entire post here is just restating my response in your words. I agree entirely with this post.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And if you STILL CAN'T see that Regret and Docb77...

If you're Point of View is SO BLACK AND WHITE, then explain this:



A person with multiple personality disorder ends up killing her husband.

She was not in control over her own mind and body, because one of her alternate egos resurfaced and took control. She comes back to reality, only to find that one of her alters killed someone she loved.



She is NOT responsible for what happened. An Alternate Personality is a result of traumatic child abuse (usually sexual abuse). She is technically mentally impaired, and in no way can be held responsible for what her alternate egos DO....


The Murder/Manslaughter of her Husband......good or evil ?

Dissociative Identity Disorder, the proper term for Multiple personality, is not 100% supported by psychological research. There are too few cases to study it adequately enough to make definitive statements concerning it.

I am of the behavioral school of thought. We believe that this Disorder is essentially "made up." A person creates another persona, a manner of behaving in certain circumstances, and this behavior results in a better outcome for the individual. This behavior is reinforced. Now, if the individual admits to remembering what occurred in this other persona, they incur some form of punishment. Thus remembering is punished. Given enough time a person may not respond to questions of remembering because of this shaping. In summary, it is my professional opinion that DID is a disorder, but it is not existent in the manner that many consider it to be.

Now, if this is the case then the person is wholly responsible for their actions. If DID is a fact and is not "made up" I would state that the individual is still wholly responsible, because the personalities, unless otherwise stated, are sane just splintered. Also, if DID is valid, it is claimed that these alter egos are all splintered portions of the whole. If this is the case, upon completion of treatment the alter egos should all combine into a whole personality. This personality is the culmination of all the other personalities. This whole personality is then responsible for the action.

If a mentally disordered individual does evil, it is mediated same as anyone else's actions are mediated, by context and intent. A mental disorder is a part of the context.

But, given this, I do not know whether she in "no way can be held responsible", I don't know what is going on in her head. I also do not believe in judging others, and this entire line of questioning requires a hypothetical judging that I do not believe should be made by me if the situation were real. I do not judge others. When asked about an act, I state the answer I would if asked whether I would consider myself evil or good in the situation.

I would state that the action was evil, but will be mediated by the context of the situation, a part of which is the disorder.

The real question is not whether the act was evil or not, it is whether or not the individual will be held accountable for the action. I believe the action is evil. But the individual may not be held accountable due to the mediating context of mental disorder.

Now, our view is not "SO BLACK AND WHITE." You merely infer that it is based on your continued disbelief as to what we say we believe. Our belief holds an enormous number of shades of gray. We believe that there are infinite levels of Good. Given this, a person goes to the area of heaven that matches their choices as to behavior here in mortality, and there are infinite levels of heaven to go to.

God is beyond corruption. He created angels who are not succeptible to the evil. Oh course when Lucifer defied god, that was the birth of evil. It was the ever growing greed for power.

Lucifer expanded evil into what it is today.

God is the only being that cannot be influinced by evil.

Thats why he had trouble understanding how man was being corrupted by it.

So he had Jesus, both god and human. Who understood how easy it is to give into evil.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And if you STILL CAN'T see that Regret and Docb77...

If you're Point of View is SO BLACK AND WHITE, then explain this:



A person with multiple personality disorder ends up killing her husband.

She was not in control over her own mind and body, because one of her alternate egos resurfaced and took control. She comes back to reality, only to find that one of her alters killed someone she loved.



She is NOT responsible for what happened. An Alternate Personality is a result of traumatic child abuse (usually sexual abuse). She is technically mentally impaired, and in no way can be held responsible for what her alternate egos DO....


The Murder/Manslaughter of her Husband......good or evil ?

Multiple Personalitys means more than one soul inhabits a body.

The soul that commited the murder has been corrupted by evil.

The soul that did not is innocent.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Multiple Personalitys means more than one soul inhabits a body.

The soul that commited the murder has been corrupted by evil.

The soul that did not is innocent.

Prove that this is a soul. You can't, because there is no soul.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove that this is a soul. You can't, because there is no soul.

Um...ok

I wont argue with you because there isnt anything to argue here.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Um...ok

I wont argue with you because there isnt anything to argue here.

I understand why you will not engage in this argument because the idea of no soul is frighting. It puts all of the claims of Christianity and other religions in question.

Originally posted by Regret
Dissociative Identity Disorder, the proper term for Multiple personality, is not 100% supported by psychological research. There are too few cases to study it adequately enough to make definitive statements concerning it.

I am of the behavioral school of thought. We believe that this Disorder is essentially "made up." A person creates another persona, a manner of behaving in certain circumstances, and this behavior results in a better outcome for the individual. This behavior is reinforced. Now, if the individual admits to remembering what occurred in this other persona, they incur some form of punishment. Thus remembering is punished. Given enough time a person may not respond to questions of remembering because of this shaping. In summary, it is my professional opinion that DID is a disorder, but it is not existent in the manner that many consider it to be.

Now, if this is the case then the person is wholly responsible for their actions. If DID is a fact and is not "made up" I would state that the individual is still wholly responsible, because the personalities, unless otherwise stated, are sane just splintered. Also, if DID is valid, it is claimed that these alter egos are all splintered portions of the whole. If this is the case, upon completion of treatment the alter egos should all combine into a whole personality. This personality is the culmination of all the other personalities. This whole personality is then responsible for the action.

If a mentally disordered individual does evil, it is mediated same as anyone else's actions are mediated, by context and intent. A mental disorder is a part of the context.

But, given this, I do not know whether she in "no way can be held responsible", I don't know what is going on in her head. I also do not believe in judging others, and this entire line of questioning requires a hypothetical judging that I do not believe should be made by me if the situation were real. I do not judge others. When asked about an act, I state the answer I would if asked whether I would consider myself evil or good in the situation.

I would state that the action was evil, but will be mediated by the context of the situation, a part of which is the disorder.

The real question is not whether the act was evil or not, it is whether or not the individual will be held accountable for the action. I believe the action is evil. But the individual may not be held accountable due to the mediating context of mental disorder.

Now, our view is not "SO BLACK AND WHITE." You merely infer that it is based on your continued disbelief as to what we say we believe. Our belief holds an enormous number of shades of gray. We believe that there are infinite levels of Good. Given this, a person goes to the area of heaven that matches their choices as to behavior here in mortality, and there are infinite levels of heaven to go to.





Dissossiative Identity Disorder is a very real illness, as there is much evidense to support its existance.

Nothing in Psychology can be fully proven, since Psychology is the study of the MIND which is not tangible or solid. That does not render it non existant.


A person who suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder (a.k.a. D.I.D.) does not MAKE IT UP.... What an IGNORANT claim to make, you OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING true of this Illness.

Alternate personalities are the RESULT of a FRAGMENTED conciousness. Almost EVERY CASE of Dissossiative Identity Disorder, the victim was repeatedly sexually abused as a child, and the defense mechanism of his or her mind takes the core personality (the actual person) out of this situation, by putting another "ego" in his or her place, to DEAL with the abuse.

Most cases of Dissossiative Identity Disorder have been cured through the Integration Process which starts by the Individual retrieving a suppressed memory (the initiation of his or her childhood abuse)


To claim that D.I.D. in these people is "made up" is total bullshit and only proves the amount of religious idealogy that poisons your perceptions.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Multiple Personalitys means more than one soul inhabits a body.

The soul that commited the murder has been corrupted by evil.

The soul that did not is innocent.

WRONG

How creative of you though.....

Multiple Personality Disorder - ONE PERSON whose ego was fragmented. Each alternate ego is a fragment of the CORE personality (the actual person) who are meant to protect the core personality from the abuse by taking the abuse FOR him or her.

The extant of "immorality" that derives in each personality is a result of the fact that those alter egos must DEAL with the abuse in place of the core personality.

Keep in mind that the Core personality (the actual person suffering from the disease) still exists, but his or her mental being has been minimized due to the fact that parts of herself or himself were broken to create the other egos.

Integration- Incase you DONT KNOW what it means..which you most likely DON'T....it's a process by which the alternate egos and the core persona are mentally fused together, to become ONE COMPLETE BEING.

The alternate egos are NOT destroyed. They are NOT erased. They are "glued" or molded back into the core personality, to become the complete being (the person he or she was before being severely abused as a child).



For YOU to claim that Multiple Personalities are more than one Soul is Fictional...because you have no proof that a soul exists, much less any proof that people with MPD have more than one soul or not.

If a soul exists, than logically a person with Multiple Personality Disorder has a FRAGMENTED SOUL, not "a bunch of souls"

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Dissossiative Identity Disorder is a very real illness, as there is much evidense to support its existance.

Nothing in Psychology can be fully proven, since Psychology is the study of the MIND which is not tangible or solid. That does not render it non existant.


A person who suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder (a.k.a. D.I.D.) does not MAKE IT UP.... What an IGNORANT claim to make, you OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING true of this Illness.

Alternate personalities are the RESULT of a FRAGMENTED conciousness. Almost EVERY CASE of Dissossiative Identity Disorder, the victim was repeatedly sexually abused as a child, and the defense mechanism of his or her mind takes the core personality (the actual person) out of this situation, by putting another "ego" in his or her place, to DEAL with the abuse.

Most cases of Dissossiative Identity Disorder have been cured through the Integration Process which starts by the Individual retrieving a suppressed memory (the initiation of his or her childhood abuse)


To claim that D.I.D. in these people is "made up" is total bullshit and only proves the amount of religious idealogy that poisons your perceptions.

No, to claim that D.I.D. in these people is "made up" is based in the amount of schooling I have done in the field of learning theory and behavior that impacts my perceptions. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with my views as to mental illness, and the validity of many disorders as they are commonly perceived. Behavior analysts do not believe claims can be made as to the "mind." Behavior analysts believe that the areas in psychology that deal with unobservable phenomena are as scientific as religion. We dislike the inferences made as to internal constructs. There is an enormous divide between behavioral psychology and cognitive psychology. Behavioral only deals with observable, directly testable, phenomena. Your statements as to this are in error. They only show a lack of knowledge in the field of psychology.

DID does not present as observable. What is presented is variation in behavior, that appear to be inconsistent and incompatible with each other. It is only as directly testable as God and spirits are. Anyone who claims otherwise is just as tenable as the religious that make the same claim. DID presents following your description, but multiple personalities cannot be 100% verified, there is room for skepticism in the case. I do not demean the disorder. I merely do not necessarily believe that there are "really" multiple personalities, there are other more plausible explanations.

Originally posted by Regret
No, to claim that D.I.D. in these people is "made up" is based in the amount of schooling I have done in the field of learning theory and behavior that impacts my perceptions. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with my views as to mental illness, and the validity of many disorders as they are commonly perceived. Behavior analysts do not believe claims can be made as to the "mind." Behavior analysts believe that the areas in psychology that deal with unobservable phenomena are as scientific as religion. We dislike the inferences made as to internal constructs. There is an enormous divide between behavioral psychology and cognitive psychology. Behavioral only deals with observable, directly testable, phenomena. Your statements as to this are in error. They only show a lack of knowledge in the field of psychology.

DID does not present as observable. What is presented is variation in behavior, that appear to be inconsistent and incompatible with each other. It is only as directly testable as God and spirits are. Anyone who claims otherwise is just as tenable as the religious that make the same claim. DID presents following your description, but multiple personalities cannot be 100% verified, there is room for skepticism in the case. I do not demean the disorder. I merely do not necessarily believe that there are "really" multiple personalities, there are other more plausible explanations.



Regret, there is FAR more evidense to back up the existance of Alternate Personalities, than there are to back up the current existance of God and Jesus....

Here are a FEW OBSERVATIONS made from viewing the MAJORITY of people with this disorder:

1) Each alternate ego has thier own name.
2) Each alternate ego has thier own personality
3) Usually, each alternate ego is aware of thier own existance, seperate from the core personality
4) The core personality (rather the person suffering from DID) does not remember the actual past trauma since it is repressed.

5) Once the woman or man remember what actually happened to them as a child, the alternate ego episodes begin to fade little by little.

6) When an Alternate Ego surfaces, the core personality blacks out. He or she has no knowledge of anything that happened when his or her alternate ego surfaced.

7) Once the victim faces what had happened to them at such an early age, they integrate. The alternate egos episodes begin to vanish, and the person becomes whole once again. This is evident, not only by lack of fragmented personalities, but by the fact that the Core Personality is never the same again....

Instead the Core Personality is usually altered slightly by the integration with alter egos, and has full access to thier memories.


All of this has been observed and recorded by almost ALL CASES OF DID.....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regret, there is FAR more evidense to back up the existance of Alternate Personalities, than there are to back up the current existance of God and Jesus....

Here are a FEW OBSERVATIONS made from viewing the MAJORITY of people with this disorder:

1) Each alternate ego has thier own name.
2) Each alternate ego has thier own personality
3) Usually, each alternate ego is aware of thier own existance, seperate from the core personality
4) The core personality (rather the person suffering from DID) does not remember the actual past trauma since it is repressed.

5) Once the woman or man remember what actually happened to them as a child, the alternate ego episodes begin to fade little by little.

6) When an Alternate Ego surfaces, the core personality blacks out. He or she has no knowledge of anything that happened when his or her alternate ego surfaced.

7) Once the victim faces what had happened to them at such an early age, they integrate. The alternate egos episodes begin to vanish, and the person becomes whole once again. This is evident, not only by lack of fragmented personalities, but by the fact that the Core Personality is never the same again....

Instead the Core Personality is usually altered slightly by the integration with alter egos, and has full access to thier memories.


All of this has been observed and recorded by almost ALL CASES OF DID.....

Yes, this is a possible explanation for the behavior, but it is not the only possible explanation. People do not go to a behavior analyst for treatment of this type of thing because they don't like our take on the situation. If we did discuss it, it would not be in the same manner as the studies that have been done on the subject.

We would view this as making inference as to the internal constructs within the individual, and not necessarily an accurate appraisal.

1) Names could have been prompted in the individual by those that believe in DID as being entirely factual. One of the most famous cases, Eve Black and Eve White did not display separate names until after it was considered she may have had DID.

2) The names were placed to seemingly conflicting behaviors. Differing behavior patterns do not necessitate DID.

3) If it is made up, the person could present this. Behaviorally this would be a sound anticipated response.

4) Same as 3

5) Once presented with evidence that the DID could have been fabricated, the behaviors lose their reinforcing efficacy.

6) Or so the person states.

7) Refer to 5

Successful treatment could just be the person adjusting to not lying or switching behaviors anymore to the lack of typical reinforcement that occurs due to these behaviors.

My, my, what an interesting discussion we have here, re: DID.

Lord Urizen
I can appreciate your point of view. The concept of a "fragmented ego" is an interesting one, especially since, IMO, even a "normal, unified" ego is something of an illusion. That is, a "healthy" ego seems singular because people generally don't pay significant attention to what's really going on inside them and miss a lot of the details. As such, I wonder if the difference between a healthy/normal ego and DID is more one of degree than of kind.

Interesting stuff to speculate about. That aside...

Regret's position, I believe, is that such speculation--an analysis of the unseen ops of the mind--is not the point, from the perspective of behavioral analysis. Behavioral analysis concerns itself with empirical data, addresses observable, measurable, problematic behavior, and seeks to correct this by reinforcing behavior which enhances the quality of life for the person. The operative word here is behavior.

While inner speculation can be quite useful--especially if both therapist and patient have an affinity for that POV--from the Behavioral POV, it is simply not relevant from an observe-n-measure perspective. This is Not to say mental operations are irrelevant on principle; just that they are not Behaviorism's concern. Indeed, they can even be viewed as distractions and hinderances to the functional analysis of observable, dysfunctional behavior.

Bottom line: when a person is in distress, one wants to do what works (ethically, of course) to alleviate that distress. "What works" will depend on large part, again, on what is important to both therapist and patient. Some people like talking therapy and philosophical speculation. Others don't. For them, a behavioral analysis approach is quite valid and indeed may be the single best approach to a problem, which may well include DID.

Pardon my intrusion. I hope my 2-cents worth was helpful. I'll get off my soapbox now.

PS. What does all this have to do with Evil and God, anyway?

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, this is a possible explanation for the behavior, but it is not the only possible explanation. People do not go to a behavior analyst for treatment of this type of thing because they don't like our take on the situation. If we did discuss it, it would not be in the same manner as the studies that have been done on the subject.

We would view this as making inference as to the internal constructs within the individual, and not necessarily an accurate appraisal.

1) Names could have been prompted in the individual by those that believe in DID as being entirely factual. One of the most famous cases, Eve Black and Eve White did not display separate names until after it was considered she may have had DID.

2) The names were placed to seemingly conflicting behaviors. Differing behavior patterns do not necessitate DID.

3) If it is made up, the person could present this. Behaviorally this would be a sound anticipated response.

4) Same as 3

5) Once presented with evidence that the DID could have been fabricated, the behaviors lose their reinforcing efficacy.

6) Or so the person states.

7) Refer to 5

Successful treatment could just be the person adjusting to not lying or switching behaviors anymore to the lack of typical reinforcement that occurs due to these behaviors.






So let's get to the point...


You basically beleive that D.I.D. doesn't exist? Despite all the cases that have been reported, besides all personal testiment, besides all treatment success, besides all case similiarities, and besides all the studies done on D.I.D. period...

You are still under the beleif that people who suffer from D.I.D. make it up for whatever reason....primarily a "cop out purpose"


Am I correct or incorrect in interpretting your stance?

Originally posted by Mindship
My, my, what an interesting discussion we have here, re: DID.

Lord Urizen
I can appreciate your point of view. The concept of a "fragmented ego" is an interesting one, especially since, IMO, even a "normal, unified" ego is something of an illusion. That is, a "healthy" ego seems singular because people generally don't pay significant attention to what's really going on inside them and miss a lot of the details. As such, I wonder if the difference between a healthy/normal ego and DID is more one of degree than of kind.

Interesting stuff to speculate about. That aside...

Regret's position, I believe, is that such speculation--an analysis of the unseen ops of the mind--is not the point, from the perspective of behavioral analysis. Behavioral analysis concerns itself with empirical data, addresses observable, measurable, problematic behavior, and seeks to correct this by reinforcing behavior which enhances the quality of life for the person. The operative word here is behavior.

While inner speculation can be quite useful--especially if both therapist and patient have an affinity for that POV--from the Behavioral POV, it is simply not relevant from an observe-n-measure perspective. This is Not to say mental operations are irrelevant on principle; just that they are not Behaviorism's concern. Indeed, they can even be viewed as distractions and hinderances to the functional analysis of observable, dysfunctional behavior.

Bottom line: when a person is in distress, one wants to do what works (ethically, of course) to alleviate that distress. "What works" will depend on large part, again, on what is important to both therapist and patient. Some people like talking therapy and philosophical speculation. Others don't. For them, a behavioral analysis approach is quite valid and indeed may be the single best approach to a problem, which may well include DID.

Pardon my intrusion. I hope my 2-cents worth was helpful. I'll get off my soapbox now.

PS. What does all this have to do with Evil and God, anyway?



WE are discussing if Moral Neutrality exists.

He says there is ONLY good and evil, no neutral.

I say there IS a neutral, as well as good and evil.

I asked him what if a person with D.I.D. committed a crime while under possession of one of their alter egos ?

He says that D.I.D. might not really exist, and therefore whatever crime that person commits is automatically evil.

Gotcha. Thanks.

Seems like two issues entwined.
When I read your question ("What if a person with D.I.D. committed a crime while under possession of one of their alter egos?", the first thing that comes to my mind is not good/evil, but responsibility. What were the circumstances of this crime, not only the specifics leading to the actual event, but psychological, social and medical histories. I would want a context as comprehensive as possible, so that I could be in a position to split this fine hair, if I had to: even IF he is responsible for the crime, is he at fault?

As for Good and Evil: these are abstract absolutes which I, personally, have a hard time applying to the real world, though I understand their relevance to this thread.

Originally posted by Mindship
Gotcha. Thanks.

Seems like two issues entwined.
When I read your question ("What if a person with D.I.D. committed a crime while under possession of one of their alter egos?", the first thing that comes to my mind is not good/evil, but responsibility. What were the circumstances of this crime, not only the specifics leading to the actual event, but psychological, social and medical histories. I would want a context as comprehensive as possible, so that I could be in a position to split this fine hair, if I had to: even IF he is responsible for the crime, is he at fault?

As for Good and Evil: these are abstract absolutes which I, personally, have a hard time applying to the real world, though I understand their relevance to this thread.


I wanna cut to the chase: Do you beleive Neutrality exists ?

"Moral neutrality." I'm not comfortable with the term because I'm not sure what you mean by it.

In the context of this thread, Good and Evil appear to be taken as absolutes which do exist in the real world (otherwise, what would the "neutral" be neutral to?). They may in fact exist, but as I implied in my prior post, personally I'm not convinced. This is why I look at responsibility.

Put another way, I suppose I could say I don't believe in Neutrality as an absolute because I don't believe in Good and Evil as absolutes.

However: I do believe that there can be sets of circumstances wherein a person can be absolved of / not punished for committing a crime.

Absolve????..........If no good nor evil, then absolved of what, unless I misunderstood you..........which I do quite somethings...sometimes..........

I do believe as in you stated this thing/god is neutral..

Originally posted by Storm
Lucifer was supposedly created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God to be good, yet it turned evil and has used its powers to fight God' s plans. It doesn' t make any sense.

For being able to exercise free will and to choose, choices must be available first. One can' t choose for evil when it has not been brought into existence.

You just made the best argument for God allowing evil - it serves free will. Without the choice of evil, there can be no choice at all and no free will. We humans would be simple cogs in a maching always "choosing" good if there were not possiblility to choose evil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You cannot say "God can't".

God = Everything. Simple is always better.

Of course you can say that - God can't be not God.

God = Everything is unfounded. It's pantheism (which is legitimate opinion) but not in keeping with the unspoken assumptions about God in this thread.

Originally posted by Storm
Lucifer was supposedly created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God to be good, yet it turned evil and has used its powers to fight God' s plans. It doesn' t make any sense.

For being able to exercise free will and to choose, choices must be available first. One can' t choose for evil when it has not been brought into existence.

Sure you can. You can choose yourself.

The whole idea of moral evil is that it is not a substance, not something that possesses being in itself. It is rather a perversion of good, and is only actuated when good beings desire what would otherwise be good things in a wrong order. This is how moral beings always lose themselves. They choose a partial good and mistake it for the whole. And when the other, higher goods intrude and make claims upon the conscience, the partial good demands that its territory remain protected at the expense of everything else. The lover of the partial good now finds himself in a quandary. He is invested in the thing he loves yet finds himself at odds with the encroaching world. He must either relinquish his love and reconcile himself or commit himself utterly to unceasing rebellion. In time, rebellion hardens into something like confirmed hardness of heart. This is the path from partial love to confirmed evil.

This is why ardent patriots sometimes become bloodthirsty tyrants, or covering seraphs become angels of darkness.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then he gave us an ever changing roadmaps, as the standards of good and evil, even those intepretted from the Bible are ever changing throughout History...

Why not just give us a clearer map? The Bible obviously hasn't been working that well in terms of promoting an only-good way of life for those who beleive in it.

A very good and valid question. I think the answer is that there is something essential about the struggle and the genuine desire and seeking of God, without we would never be able to appreciate and experience the proper union with God.

Originally posted by docb77
Right, the bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

If we did have a perfect translation of the Bible, it would only do us as much good as we had the ability to read it.

A map, no matter how accurate, only does so much good if the person reading it doesn't understand scale, or the compass, or the symbols that go into it. Many Christian groups may try to read the bible without checking the compas.

Right, and what's the compass? The Roman Catholic Church. Hence the claim of the Church for infallibility in matters of faith and morals. Without such infallibility the usefulness of the Bible is reduced to solipcism.