zeo

Excellent analysis Ryuki, I think responsibility is the key point. And sorry YoungGuyver, nothing I have stated was intended to be offensive. I simply stated what I perceive about your statement. To me you do seem to be giving only a single perspective in your remarks and that perspective does look like someone looking at it from a modern mindset which is exclusive of how and why the story was originally written. For example, you point out that Eve's name essentially means life. But so what? Adam's name means mankind. The story is about the Creation of the world and mankind after all. I do not see how this in any way serves anything you have argued? Since life being part of Genesis is a given. Does this somehow change that Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of his own free will, and wasn't tricked like Eve was? What is the point to this story if not free will and the role it plays in determining our fate? Is god malicious because he put metal in the Earth and we dig it up and turn it into weapons? When it was our choice from start to finish? When do we take responsibility for our choices? Just because god made it so certain things are possible, then we must assume he wanted bad things to happen? Really, the only way god could have not given Adam and Eve the choice to eat from the tree of knowledge was to never allow Adam and Eve to ever learn anything and what better way to show that with knowledge comes consequences and responsibility? Btw, the age of Adam for example is refered to in the Bible. Since both Adam and Eve started to age and die after they were kicked out Eden, this places Adam at least to have lived in Eden for several centuries, because... Without which they would have started aging just like us, and remember also Adam was created on the Sixth day of Creation and before Eve there was Lilith (may not really be in Christian lore but is in Jewesh lore, which is the original version), so a lot of time had passed between his creation and the final banishment from Eden. Never mind the point that they were counting the time the universe was created in days despite night and day was not created until the seventh day, separating concept from what was said is the key since without day or night then the measurement of days for a eternal being like god could be our equivalent of eons. So their is little doubt that Adam lived a long time. On your next point about Angel's, messengers they may be but just like god people can't hear them unless they believe. Which puts you back at square one on convincing the masses and even the Angel's voices can be painful to some. But to your point it doesn't change that like the rest of us Moses had to make his own choices as well. Especially in his death, Moses resisted God's will that he'd die before entering the land of Canaan. Something he could never do if we didn't have free will. And if god really could just over ride free will then why didn't he do that to Moses when he commanded him to die but instead reasoned with him? Not that your argument is against free will entirely but if free will wasn't so important to god then why suffer any disagreement from us at all? If god had really hardened the Pharoah's heart then why didn't he just do the same to Moses to accept his fate? At the very least the evidence in the bible is contradictory on free will, however all the contradictory bits are from stories written by people with their own agendas and intended message. God himselve never wrote anything in the bible. So your call for god to come out of the closet is a bit misplaced, since with the only exception of Christ and the Ten Commandments everything else written in the bible is all second to third hand sources. Even for Christians the only time that can be pointed to that God ever had a voice among man was with Christ. Christ's own story isn't filled with so many contradictions and in fact many of his messages are much more palatable even to our modern sensibilities. Things like saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (It's just unfortunate that Christ didn't write more, or perhaps the rumors are true that some of Christ personal messages have either been lost or suppressed because some of those messages may contradict with the church's. Like the movie Stigmata was based around the idea the church suppressed the idea that Christ never sactioned the building of temples of any kind and that worship of god was to happen anywhere and not just in a church. I don't know if that is true but does seem more in line with what we know of Christ, who is known to have been against the practices of the temples of the time.) Yet in other stories in the bible stoning is shown as justified, so do you go with what the guy who is supposed to be god's voice on Earth or some story written by someone no one even remembers anymore? Which holds more weight to the intent of god? Really, stories written to appeal to the masses are often filled with contradictions. But this should be judged separately from the intended message. Which in the bible, just like with zen, is often more than what it may first appear. Even the stories that seem straight forward can have more than one meaning. This is both good, in gaining wisdom, and bad when people obssess with any perceived contradictions separate from the intended message. For example we have other stories in the bible that give other messages, like the power of faith bringing down the walls of Jericho... it was the choice to believe that is credited with bringing the walls down. Much like the saying god helps those that helps themselves. Many of the stories not only emphasised free will but the power that comes when many wills are combined in a single common goal. Ultimately I must point out there is a powerful demonstration on the emphasis on free will in the bible. And that is either the eternal blessing or eternal damnation of your soul. When good and evil are matter of choice then free will indeed becomes the main point. The bible is ultimately a guide for saving your soul after all. . . Here's a good article on free will and it's role compared to god. God’s sovereignty and our free will By the forester

Gray's 72-yr old Paradox solved, dolphins really are that powerful NASA spacecraft identifies buried glaciers on Mars Super-microscope watches molecules break apart and bond step by step Unidentified close-aboard cosmic ray source reported - is it a dark matter source? Artist's Uranium-Glass Kits Let You Play God, Create New Universes Giant Mystery Creature with "Elbows" Captured on Deep Sea Camera LHC Might Not Be Back Online Until 2010 or Later Obama Considering Ares Cancellation, Orion Scale Back Inside NASA's 747 Flying Telescope Genetic Testing Promises to Reveal Your Child's Sports Aptitude

HandBrake DVD Ripper Now Converts Any Video File OLED Room Lights Nearer as BASF, Osram Break Brightness Record Micron promises supercharged 1 GB/s SSD Memristors Make Chips Cheaper The first hybrid memristor-transistor chip could be cheaper and more energy efficient. Lenovo Lets You Disable Your Stolen Laptop With a Stern Text Message

Hmm, just my opinion but it could be YoungGuyver that you glossed over my point of the perceptions and sensibilities of those who wrote the stories in the first place? And a simple point to consider, if god had forbidden eating from the tree of Knowledge and Evil then how could Eve and then Adam have eaten from it if they did not have free will? Conversely, the tree had to be there to give them the choice, otherwise there would be no point to the rule and the ability of free will without being given a choice. Like Ryuki was trying to say, god was giving us the choice and just told us the ground rules if we decided to make that choice. Very much like a parent throwing their kid out of the house once they reached the age and will to not listen to their parents anymore. In other words, you're all grown up now so welcome to the real world. As for Exodus, true there are many examples of god apparently overriding free will but in each of these cases it was to serve a purpose to either demonstrate gods power to those who would question it or to either test or teach a lessen. All of which again goes back to my point of the mindset of the people who wrote these stories and the point that all of them are to teach some moral message. Consider, like I pointed out with Hercules, the writers of the story wanted to emphasis the main point of the story which was the power of god. How they did so reflects the mindset of the time, which is why the same stories can have very different meaning to us now. But one way to look at it would be that it would help explain to the faithful why any man would be crazy enough to stand against the will of god to the point he had to have his whole army wiped out, etc. Another is the death of the Pharoah's first born is what hardened his heart, even though it was just god throwing the Pharoah's own decree right back at him. It could be another reason why they would have said god hardened his heart even if ultimately it was his own decisions that led that to happen. The biggest difference between the old and new testaments is the direction the intended message went. Like in the old testament god was the source of all things both good and evil. Satan himself was but a servant of god (like his chief prosecutor). But in the new testament that all changed as evil was heaped onto Satan and god was only good. Despite the contradition of a being with both the power of creation and destruction at his command. This is similar to what happened with the modern view on other religions, like both Anubis and Hades are now seen as evil even though they were simply the rulers of the afterlife and their kingdom contained both heaven and hell. Anubis and Hades were just your final judge in the after life, but like Satan they are now seen as just evil. And even then the view on Satan's role has changed over time. Just look at Dante's Inferno for example and compare it to the modern vision of hell. But what the new and old testaments had in common was they were all intended to give a message, the absense of dinosaurs and other ancient creatures from Genesis can be argued to show that it is not a literal story. There is even evidence that the story of genesis was essentially created along with the Bible from many different but related stories. So it's like listening to Zen stories, if you try to interpret the words instead of the meaning of the story then you learn nothing and only confuse yourself. Unless you can understand the perspective of the story teller then you won't get the story. So YoungGuyver, your modern sensibilities can read those stories and come away with the conclusion you have stated but do you really think that was the original intended message?

You Will Soon Be Watched Underwater by a Robotic Tuna We All Live in a Flying Submarine Insectobots Coming U.S. Army Investing $50 Million in Video Games Modeling Brain Blasts A computer simulation reveals how blast waves reverberate around a soldier's helmet. - http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/21712/ Boeing Airborne Laser Weapon Fires for the First Time A Chainsaw Bayonet Strapped to an AR-15 Rifle is the Ultimate Zombie Killing Weapon Russia's New Armor-Fooling Rocket Grenade Is An "Abrams Killer" Apparently Not really, would work against Russian tanks though, but shows how the arms race is always advancing.

Supercomputers Corroborate Einstein's e=mc2 After 103 Years Scottish Scientists Fight Cancer Cells With a Lightsaber AdminPatch Pain-Free Hypodermic Alternative Does It With Millions Of Needles Instead NASA's New Ejector System Borrows Tech From Yesterday's Apollo Program Treatment Could Make Women Live 30 Percent Longer, and Stay Fertile Too Paralyzed Man Speaks Again Using Brain Implant Nanotech Material Never Gets Wet, Even When Wet Napping Boosts Sophisticated Memory, Study Shows Good News: Astronauts Can Drink Their Own Urine Amazing Hydrogen Fuel Tank Being Made Of Buckyballs And Graphene

New York City Water Nightmare is an Underwater Gadget Lover's Dream The 45 Coolest Moments In Doctor Who's History Make Your Own Thought-Screen Helmet and Prevent Alien Abduction Touchscreen Computer-Controlled Coffee Machine Provides Spit-Free Drinks Buy Luke's Original Lightsaber for $185,000, Gizmo Animatronic for $5,000 Illustrative Slings Show How That Arm Got Boned Lost Astronaut Tool Bag Spotted With Telescope Salvation Army Santas Now Take Credit Cards HIV/AIDS Patients to Be Tagged with RFID Chips Jet Pack Crosses 1,500-Foot Long Colorado Canyon, Breaks World Record

MIT's Huggable Robotic Bear Keeps Ill People From Feeling Sad Hardware Hoarder Builds Australia's Largest Computer Museum In His House Tip: Don't Hire A Hit Man via Text Message Samsung Demonstrates Folding OLED Cellphone, Vindicates Thousands of Ridiculous Concepts Make's LED History Movie Is Pretty Cool, Includes DIY Instructions DIY Smart Coaster Lets You Know When Coffee Is 'Just Right' Judge Orders Ballmer to Testify in 'Vista Capable' Class-Action Lawsuit Moto RAZR Stops Bullet, Saves Man's Life Finnair Shows Us How We'll Fly in 2093 Huge Spinning Blade POV Display is Not for Kids

Mini Mario Kart R/C Racing Set Takes the Game Into the Real World Cellphone Gun Delivers Hot, Sneaky Death, Can't Send Text Messages 3D Power Is Highly Varied Across iPhone/iPod Touch Iterations Swiss Making First Solar Submarine, Defeating the Purpose of an Underwater Vessel Dark Knight Batarangs: To Match Those Hockey Pads Spanish Town Putting the Dead to Work Generating Solar Power Trumpet Hero Would Have Been Very Popular in the 1940s France Gets New Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, World Exclaims "Merde!" Cops Confiscate Man's Xbox 360 Because His Car Smells Like Pot

Thanko's USB-Powered Lunchbox Keeps Your Food Piping Hot Stratos Double-Deck Airplane May Be the Future of Aviation Student Writes to Steve Jobs, Gets Free Final Cut Studio 2 Opinion: In-Flight Wi-Fi Is a Bad, Bad Thing HAL 9000 Papercraft Will, At Some Point, Cut You See Saw Bicycle: Crashing is Only One of the Ways It Can Kill You Image Gallery - The International Space Station turns 10 Umbuster Brass Knuckle Umbrella Now For Sale

Environment only changes what choices are available, it doesn't change that you always have a choice. And in most cases we control our own environment and even when we don't we control ourselves. Like the example Ryuki pointed out. Besides the occassional natural disasters are hardly every day events and most of them are just a kick in pants type event to remind us we aren't god. For example two people can grow up in bad homes, get beaten everyday, etc. But they don't become the same person when they grow up. Not everyone had a bad life becomes bad themselves. The choice was still theirs to make! Even when we are given very little choice we still have a choice. And in the same token two people can grow up in caring homes and be given everything and still choose to be different people. Just like a game of cards, we always have the choice to deal the hand we are given. Just like with the insane though, good and evil only matter if we had a choice. Without choice there is no good or evil, there is no thought at all. Just existence and I for one don't want to believe we simply exist. Really good response Ryuki, sums it up nicely. Unfortunately it doesn't address everything V Guyver covered so... Aaaaaaah, you're making me write too much V Guyver Make it stop Nope, that would all be taking away free will because it takes away choice. Besides, taking away disease belies the fact everything is connected and also belies the fact everything changes. From the smallest organism to the largest. Our body isn't just us, it's a whole bunch of things all living together. And giving us food removes motivation, never mind we got kicked out of Eden for a reason. You might as well ask god to give us back Eden because we had no disease or need of food in Eden. We sure as hell did a good job taking care of the rest of the planet now didn't we? But in Eden we also had no change, no desire to seek knowledge and better ourselves. A place of no change in a universe that we know is filled with nothing but change might as well be death. Yeah, I know confusing god with someone with a god complex Uh, none of those can be changed or taken away without taking away free will. We have conflicts because we disagree, if god steps in and takes away the ability to disagree then we don't have free will. . . We make ourselves suffer, if god steps in and prevents us from making ourselves suffer then he takes away free will. Etc, etc. etc. Apparently your argument is we should have all the benefits but none of the penalties of free will. But that defeats the purpose of free will and the ability to learn from our mistakes. We wouldn't need to be sentient if god made the world perfect. And really, no one has the same idea of a perfect world so whose idea of perfection do we go by? One of the things a wise person will tell you is there is no such thing as complete perfection, only the desire to seek perfection. Any form of perfection you may find will only fit a certain criteria but never all criterias. Reminds me of an old twilight zone episode where this criminal guy thought he had gone to heaven because he was being given everything he ever wanted, but then realized it was boring as hell and then his host told him, "Whatever made you think you were in heaven?" You know, the old be careful what you wish for because there is always a price. Sorry but ask any parent and they will tell you they never fully let go. A parent will always try to help their child until they are no longer able to do so. And kicking us out of Eden is just like kicking your kid out of the house to live on their own, doesn't mean you don't call, etc. Just because you don't live with your parent(s) anymore doesn't mean they stop being part of your life. The moment god gave us free will he had to let us go just like a parent, he couldn't give us free will otherwise. But that doesn't mean he can't nag us just like a parent. As long as we have free will, absolutely not. Show me one place in the world that is crime free? There is no such thing as a perfect system where free will is involved, this is pretty much a universal truth. And most people I believe realize it. Hell, even in off the wall sci-fi's like the movie Matrix, choice is the problem when it comes to dealing with humans. The one variable that not even perfect minded machines could ever solve accept to give us the very same world we live in. Or the movie Bruce Almighty, the one thing Bruce couldn't do even with the power of god at his command was affect free will. At the very least this shows how common that idea is that free will is unsurmountable through the power of choice. Really philosophers and the like have thought long and hard on the problem of human nature and free will and even after thousands of years we have no clear solution. And being all powerful doesn't change that fact unless you interfere with free will. It's the ultimate catch 22. Never mind, even ignoring free will, even pain is part of who and what we are, take away pain and suffering and you change the human condition and our very nature. Our memories are a part of what makes us who we are, take anything away and we become different people. Who also lose our uniqueness and individuality. Never mind we lose technology and everything else we associates with being human. For example without suffering there would be no need, and without need there would be no invention. Remember, Eden was heaven on Earth but Adam and Eve lived there for centuries with only one thing apparent... Nothing Ever Changed!!! Uh, if he killed every human on the planet then we wouldn't be having this conversation. So no we can't compare it because that never happened. People survived all over, it wasn't even just Noah and the people on the Ark. Otherwise we would all look like Noah and his people, but we don't. There is also plants and animals we clearly know weren't native to where Noah lived and yet they are still around as well. As for mass killing, I don't believe god caused the flood as much as just warned about it but since we're arguing the bible let's use some real world example of dealing with evil that we can all agree was evil. . . So what would you call going to war with Nazi Germany and bombing the hell out of them? Should we have just ignored their aggression and let them take over the world or was it right to fight them? Mind you God never said self defense was wrong, only murder. And for the good of the many, the wicked sometimes have to be put down. And again, even with the punishment god still gave warning and a last chance. Like offering a defeated enemy a last chance to surrender, it was their choice whether or not to accept the offer at salvation. If god had no mercy then there would have been no warning. So I think god is covered as far as that goes. Really bad comparison, 1) It took centuries of ever increasing sin and misdeeds before the flood happened. Tell me one law enforcement in the world with that much patients? 2) God is can look into our very soul. A cop is only human and can only make judgments on what he/she can perceive, but even a cop only has to think that someone is in danger. God however wait's till the crime is commited, because free will allows us to make both the right and wrong choice and so we can't be condemned until the choice is made. But even then god waited till the evil was spreading out of control before he was ever said to have taken action. 3) Just like a cop God didn't do anything before the sin was committed. The actions weren't pre-emptive any more than a cop shooting an armed suspect that is already known for having killed someone else is pre-emptive. 4) God is the ultimate judge, the one being that knows everything and can thus be the only one who can judge fairly all the time. But unlike a human judge god has to consider all of creation in the balance of his decisions, while human judges often only have to deal with the fate of a single individual at a single time. So the weight of responsibility god has to endure is far greater and has a lot more to be concerned about than just us individuals. 5) If solutions for individuals could work for the masses then we would never have wars, as long as free will is a factor there comes a time when there is only one action that can be taken against those who refuse to reason or change their ways. Like the saying evil happens because good people do nothing, we are responsible not only for our own choices but those of others and god has only been said to step in when we do nothing and thus give god no other choice. Suggesting there is always another option belies that people make choices and you can't force or convince someone not to make the wrong choice if they don't want to listen. Even god has to allow this as otherwise he would have to take away our free will and with it the reason we exist. No, no one living has ever heard god's voice and lived. They only got mental impressions. At best you could only say telepathic communications but that could be from anyone, like angels who are after all god's messengers. If god had actually spoken then everyone would have heard. But just like the prophets, only those who would listen could perceive the message. Really, the only thing you hear in your head is thoughts, if it was actual sound then everyone in your area would also hear it and it wouldn't require faith, only ears and the ability to hear. And let's remember people back then were a hell of a lot more religious than we are now. Unless you're living in a religious controled nation like Iran there is no modern comparison. Having prophets and seers was pretty much normal back in the periods the bible covers. Hell, even wars had to get approval from seers in some cultures. So I'm skeptical on your "they may have thought he was nuts" possibility. But again, it wouldn't matter because god can't force people to listen, just like not everyone listen to their parent's advice as adults but unlike parents we can't see, hear, or touch god. We can only choose to listen to the messages and/or signs. In fact, before Christ God never had a real physical representation of any kind. Even the burning bush turned Moses hair gray, and that was a short conversation. A whole sermons, which could take hours, would have surely killed Moses and is hardly something that could ever be called practical. Helps if there is something to tell them, people with faith generally don't live sinful lives and it has been a very long time since there have been any prophets. Christ's sacrifice pretty much negated the need for them as he gave us the whole message and it generally takes saints to actually be close enough to hear anything anymore. As for an excuse, really? Why do you think god needs angels then when their primary purpose is to be god's messengers? And we are talking about god, a being of infinite power. Just his breath alone can split the sea, etc. Read Psalm 104 or 147. Or this: “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: . . . The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. . . . The voice of the Lord shaketh the wilderness . . .” (Psalm 29, KJV). Try putting that much power next to your head and see what happens. Or just rent the movie "Dogma" if you can't really imagine it, there was six people who met that fate in that movie. May just be a satirical movie but made some interesting points. Sorry but I did answer that, god had no choice. Anything he could have done would have taken the choice away from Cain. God allows all things related to free will, we wouldn't have free will otherwise. You can't have it both ways, god either gives free will and let's us make our own choices or he takes it away. There is no in between, we either have free will or we don't. Everything you are suggesting would go against giving us free will, we would never be able to think for ourselves. We could never sin but neither could we ever do good of our own free will because what you suggest would take that choice away from us. Just like the law god can only tell us what is wrong and what is right, the rest is up to us. It was never god's choice on how Cain would react! Like Ryuki said, god only requires our belief. Cain just blamed others for having a weaker belief than his brother, but that was his choice and not god's. Cain could just as easily have realized his mistake and change his actions accordingly. That's the nature of free will, you have the choice at all times to do either good or bad. And god couldn't even tell him anything he didn't want to hear. Another way to look at it is thus Abel heard god's message but Cain only heard the part he wanted to hear. Really, god could have drawn diagrams and blue prints for Cain to know exactly what he wanted but it would still have been Cain's choice. God told him what he wanted, it was Cain's choice to interpret it the way he did and again his choice to respond the way he did. Cain knew the rules, he knew murder was wrong, he knew wraith was a sin, yet he commited those sins anyway. So ultimately the responsibility of those choices goes with the person who made those choices. Even Einstein never liked the idea that God didn't control every single aspect of reality, which is why he never liked quantum physics even though he was ultimately forced to accept it. Sorry but that is opinion, we wouldn't have wars at all if everyone could be reasonable and you can't blame mental illness on everyone who has ever committed a crime. Only god really knows who can and can't be reformed, what you're suggesting is he killed the innocent along with the guilty without any regard or mercy but if that was the case then why did he warn Noah and all those others all around the world who also received warning of the flood? Why did he ask Noah to save the animals? You're second guessing god with no idea who actually died during the flood. And let's separate what some versions of the bible may say versus others, the evangelist version for example says most were saved. Not all versions of the bible agree that the great flood killed everyone. In actual archeological history it didn't even kill most people. The last time the human race was nearly wiped out was like 75,000 years ago when a Caldera exploded. But the Great Flood was not a mass extinction event. So let's stop with the killing of everyone references. There was a great flood, there is archeological evidence of this, besides the over 270 ancient cultures that have stories of a great flood there is also evidence that a great flood occured about 8000 years ago when the ice sheets from the last ice age was melting, but it never put the whole planet underwater. Really, even if god melted the ice caps completely it still wouldn't flood every square inch of the world. Really, if that would have happened then no one would have survived, even after the flood ended because then all the soil would have been destroyed by the sea water, so no fresh water plants would have been able to grow anywhere. All the water would have been contanimated with sea water, etc. And then there was also historical good that came out of the flood, since the people who had to evacuate the coastal areas (who were already developing farming) had to move to where the hunter gatherers lived and thus allowed for the rapid spread of agriculture and made the world better for everyone. Hardly the near end of the world image dipicted in some versions of the Bible. I never said that, you're taking the extreme interpretation. No, I just pointed out it wasn't the word for word transcripte from god. So like any story there is coloring from the people who wrote the story down. Really, look at the news. Do reporters always report the news word for word with the actual events that happened? Is no one ever misquoted? Does that make the news hogwash? No, it just means we have to think when we read the news. Similarly we should think when reading the bible. So quotes are fine but you have to put them into context. Like many of the stories of armageddon were based on Jews and later Christians being oppressed and they wrote of righteous retribution in the form of religious stories that made it into the bible. A little history checking shows that Megiddo was the crossroads for the old world and of course any final confrontation between the Jews/Christians and their enemies would have taken place there.. In order to understand this text, one must know that ancient Hebrew (like Greek and other ancient languages) did not have a separate set of characters to indicate numbers, but simply used the letters of its alphabet to represent numbers. This fact provides the basis for the ancient practice of "gematria," in which numerical equivalents of words and names are calculated (still a popular game today!). So if you run the numbers then 666 is the numerical representation of Emporer Nero, the beast enemy of the first Christian Century. In other words the practice of comparing an oppressive government leader to Satan is nothing new and puts some of what is in the bible into context. Remember many of those stories were written by people while they were being oppressed. So that is one way the bible is colored by the writers, aside from there being more than one version of the bible with minor but sometimes significant differences between them. Another is that these same people sought to give greater meaning to the major events in their lives. All natural disasters were thus god's will, which is one reason why I don't believe god sent the flood so much as just warned us about it since we now know natural disasters are just part of nature. And why many of the faults you may see with god is just perceived faults. The only constant you can count on is human nature. You for example from the beginning of this debate wanted to seek some truth, this is what I've always seeked. The Bible does describe events that actually happened, archeologist have found many things that were previously only mentioned in the bible and were later revealed to be real places and real events. Just like the city of Troy was once thought a myth before someone actually found it. So there is some truth to what is shown in the bible but unless we put what is said into context of the intended moral message via understanding the mindset of those who wrote it then our interpretations would only be more colored by our own personal biases and judgments on top of their's. This is what I was trying to get across with examples like Hercules, a hero written according to the morals and values of the time period the story was written. To them murder and redemption often went hand in hand, but to us this would be horrible. The difference being to them death was a much bigger part of everyday life, so to them it was as much a story motivator as having a bad hair day is for us. Similarly our values are not the same as the people who wrote the bible, things like slavery are no longer accepted, mostly because we don't need slaves while many ancient cultures did in order to have anything like the free time we enjoy. We also no longer stone people to death, etc. Much of that we can thank Christ for, since he changed many of those old beliefs. Like let he with no sin toss the first stone, etc. And unlike the bible he was the only authority on god's will. After all it's called Christianity for a reason. The Bible wasn't even written until centuries after his death and resurrection. And we know many other stories were not included. This is why many have disagreed with the Church because the church ultimately changed the message of Christ. Like there is some evidence that Mary Magdalen was one of Christ apostles, a sect existed even after his death based around her. But ultimately the male dominated Church changed that and ever since women have had a lesser role. The Church even had the gull to charge for god's forgiveness at one point, which along with other falterings from the path is why we have so many branches of Christianity today. This however shouldn't change anyone's belief in Christ himself, only realize we should follow our hearts instead of every single word in the bible. Cause that way only leads to extremism like the Crusades, witch trials, inquisitions, etc. Ultimately Christianity is based on Christ, everything else is just references. God is depicted in both the old and new testaments according to how the people of the time interpreted the world. But we should know every event has more than one interpretation. Just like the same story can mean different things to different people. Of course I'm probably getting my own beliefs mixed up in this debate, since like I said before I'm not a believer in religion, just in god. So excuse me if the message I'm giving isn't always consistently the same.

No problem Eether, I understand fully but consider V Guyver is playing devil's advocate a bit here and mainly puting up the questions for us to consider. So am I to an extent as we're debating the nature of the message given by religion as to the intent and nature of god. Well V Guyver, if we're really debating the religious aspect then I should point out not every religion has painted god in the same light. But I'll play along with the Christian take on things though of course this will require a long reply... Interesting, can you point to a single failure that wouldn't have conflicted with free will and the very nature of creation? Cause you haven't so far and really, god can't change everything he feels fit without taking away free will. You claim logical reasoning but your statements are one of opinions. God's perceived flaws are just that, perceived. Your ideals not withstanding, but I can only logically assume you're arguing against free will. At least not free will in any absolute way because your arguments all lead to excusing the responsibility for free will. Let's take responsibility, is a parent responsible for all the actions of the child throughout the child's life? If that is the case then we can never be adults, we can never have responsibility for our own actions and choices. What you are saying is that god should continuously preach to us and never punish us for doing wrong but just keep on preaching to us regardless of how many times we don't listen and no matter how bad our crimes become. Sure, let's tell a seriel killer that killing is bad and let's just assume they will eventually listen and not kill anymore. Ever heard of punishment to fit the crime? Or the rights of the victims? If logic is truly your criteria then I don't see how you can say that penalty can't ever be a result of making bad choices unless you ignore the responsibility of people making their own choices? We aren't god but we can logically see that a serial killer will kill again if given the opportunity. Do we allow that to happen or do we stop the killer? Another way to look at it is you may call god's actions extreme but what would have been the result if he hadn't taken those actions? Would we not have ultimately destroyed ourselves? Again and again you have taken the stance of reform, but you can't reform people who don't want to be reformed. If god forced or tried to change our natures then that would have interfered with free will and taken the choice away from us. So what choice does that leave god? Why has his interactions been limited to spiritual? Who knows, could be perhaps because we would die instantly in his presense perhaps? Just looking at him through an avatar, like a burning bush, can turn us gray and hearing his voice directly is said to cause our heads to explode. Yeah, I can see why you would complain he isn't around enough but then again who could say they ever had and not be speaking to us from the other side? Of course we would have to ignore the thousands of times god is mentioned giving signs, warnings, helping out with miracles, and speaking to countless prophets before we can say he never tried. Sure, god spends thousands of years telling us right from wrong and because some of us didn't listen we should blame god. . . Sounds a lot like you're blaming the police instead of the criminals who commited the crimes, what of the rights of the victims? What of responsibility for one's own choices? Really, if you think modern wars are bloody we should illustrate how horrible they use to be and then imagine how cruelly people use to treat each other once upon a time. How much do you think god should tolerate before enough is enough? Again it should be noted things like the great flood were not god's only way of reacting, in many cases it was indeed the last resort. Another way of looking at it is that god spoke to Noah because Noah was one of the few who would listen, if everyone listened then everyone would have been safe. The choice and responsibility for that choice was ours. You might as well argue that sending people to jail for commiting crime is too harsh as well. Yeah, let's try to reform a rapist or child molester. Despite the fact studies show they can't be reformed, let's do so regardless of how many times they commit the crime and never punish them. Sorry but your argument doesn't seem very logical or practical to me. Then you would have to put on trial every judge that ever lived and everyone who has ever enforced a law. I'm sure the dinosaurs could plead a good case of genocide but then if they weren't killed off then we wouldn't have ever been here to complain either. Never mind many of them just evolved into smaller animals. God's actions are always equated with the greater good, your only grounds of argument is good for who. But it is also a fact that death is part of life. God never promised us long lives! Death is death regardless of how it happens or when. And many can easily argue that death is what makes life precious, and like any gift it can be taken away if you neither appreciate it or want it. Again the story of the flood shows that the choice was ours, people could either listen to the message and save themselves or ignore the message and let themselves die. You might as well blame people who put up warning signs that you got hurt because you ignored the warning. Indeed god may not have even caused the flood, it may have been natural and he just warned those that would listen of its coming. Natural disasters are neither good nor evil and the only thing we know for sure is Noah was warned and told not only to save himself but the animals as well. Also, since Noah wasn't the new Adam, he clearly saved other people as well... Sorry but everything is part of creation, life doesn't just spring forth whole and in its final form. From the moment of creation to now the universe has been in constant change. Death is just part of the cycle of life and change. And we are the sum of all that came before us, if god had excluded anything then we wouldn't be what we are now. (unless you want to argue creationism versus evolution) Even innocents often necessarily pay for the sins of others, because in this world our lives are inextricably intertwined. What one does will, more often than not, in some way effect others and even the world. I may for example pollute the air, but you'll then breathe the pollution. If a mother smokes crack, her baby will likely be born addicted, etc. For all things there was a time and place, and all of what you have said ignores free will. It doesn't matter what god could foresee, it still had to be our choice if we were to have free will. If god had changed anything then we would not have free will and only then could you blame him for everything. But no, we have free will and thus the choices and the consequences of those choices are ours and ours alone. The problem with Cain wasn't the worthiness of the sacrifice but what it represented. Abel's sacrifice was from the heart, Cain's was just a token and it was their choice on what the sacrifice was. Cain's complaint is much like yours that the act itself should be enough and not the intent. God had told them both what was expected of them but only Abel listened. If god had done any of the things you suggest then it wouldn't have been a choice. Another problem is even with the ability to foresee doesn't mean you know what will happen in a situation involving free will. The choices we make shape the future, just because Cain was unhappy with god's reaction doesn't mean he had to kill his brother. Even that was a choice and it wouldn't be a choice if it was pre-ordained. We aren't robots, even god has to deal with our choices. Since that is the nature of free will. Even if god knew what Cain's response would be doesn't change the fact that the only way for god to not allow events to take place was to take away the choice and thus free will. Mostly in fact that's exactly what god does, but like a parent free will doesn't stop him from telling you what he expects from you. A parent never stops caring just because they let their children live their lives and make their own choices. But just like a parent god can't force you to listen, ultimately it's your choice. Also before you can have free will, you must first know that you have a choice. Letting us go about in ignorance isn't giving us a choice either. Remember one of the things a parent does is teach their children and lessens often have their price. Not all of us can learn by example alone, many of us have to experience the mistake for ourselves before we accept it. It is also true that we aren't always ready to accept things in life until we have reached a certain stage in our life that we can accept things we would not otherwise accept. Wisdom is one of the hardest things for us to acquire but often times it does require us to experience a great many unpleasant things before we acquire that wisdom. Really, that is one way to look at it but ignores the fact he let us pretty much do whatever we wanted for thousand of years. Consider the centuries of human sacrifices, marrying animals, etc. and yet you claim god showed no tolerance before he interfered? Which is another point about free will, god didn't make us suffer all those ills. We did it to ourselves! Though I should also point out pretty much everything you have quoted were all the words of people and not god. Very few things have actually been claimed to be the direct words of god, like the ten commandments. Most of everything stated in the bible was written by People who sought to see everything in their life as a test or some hidden meaning. Of couse I know you point it out because the bible is your primary reference in this debate for the faults you perceive with god is from the viewpoint of the Christian the bible, which is often referred to as the word of god. But mind you as I already pointed out god can't talk directly to anyone without killing them. So he has to talk to us through signs or prophets, but that leaves the message to be interpreted and not the direct words of god. Moses himself only spoke to god once, through a burning bush, and it turned his hair gray. Every other time it was through signs which he interpreted. While many other parts of the bible were added centuries after the death of Christ, who really is the only one with any direct claim to having heard the words of god. As many a scholar will point out the religious text should not be read as a book of law, doing so is what religious extremist do and ultimately they blind people to the message those texts were intended to convey. Another way to look at it is that if you accept God is 100% holy then why should He ever be expected to put up with any sin or nonsense whatsoever from His creation? Instead of being amazed that He periodically calls for judgment in the Old Testament, we should be amazed that he ever shows mercy and patience. I mean, think of it, if God was not merciful, even you and I would be zapped the very instant that we'd rebel or sin in any way today. If god did not try to reform us then why give us signs, why have prophets? Why tolerate any sin or misdeed? Why offer forgiveness even on our death beds? Why even have a purgatory and not just send everyone to hell? So instead of just looking at who god punished, you should instead be asking why god didn't punish a lot more because frankly if we look at the history of sin then god should have caused great floods practically every ten minutes. The bible is imperfect because we are imperfect, but if we were perfect then we wouldn't have any choice. Yin and yang, light and dark, good and evil, the universe is full of balance but balance does not mean perfection but instead is compromise. I would say more but I think I wrote more than enough for now.

Hmm, I believe you are taking a very narrow view on those events V Guyver. In fact I think it's bordering on being historically revisionist in my opinion. You're ignoring other factors like the existence of the Nephilim, in short the world god had created had become corrupted by factors that were not intended. Imagine if you will if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out, would the world we know have ever existed? Were there no other great floods that had nothing to do with us but just a fact of the nature of the world we live in? The problem is people tend to think of the events of the bible in only the aspect that it effects us directly. This despite the teachings that pride and vanity had long been shown to be sins and generally wrong, yet continuously the people who wrote the stories of the bible always place the reasons for god's actions squarely on ourselves. Yet there are other stories we rarely ever consider, such as the existence of Nephilim and other creatures that clearly were not intended to co-exist with us. There is also the point that just like a parent, only if the child listens can the parent warn their child of the penalty their actions may cause. Again I put to you that your argument only seeks to separate the responsibility of free will from the choices made. Sure god could do lots more but not without interfering with free will. 1) You can't make people listen if they do not wish to listen. 2) You can't force someone to do the right thing, it must be their choice. You're analysis also belies that there were other warnings, Noah wasn't the only one warned and not the only one who made preparations. Noah was just the one who built the ship we all know about but we can easily point out many other cultures around the world also have the same flood myth and their own methods of surviving it. But even putting the reason squarely on us belies that just like any law there comes a time when you have little choice but to enforce the law. Otherwise there is no point to the law and no authority to back it up to convince people to follow that law. Even if god presents himself to every single person that would not change anything. Because unless we can be trusted to make the choice freely then it isn't a choice and god ultimately has to give us that choice in order to give us free will. It's like blaming a police officer for not being around when you commit a crime and then throwing you in jail for the crime. Having to constantly police you is not free will. Consequently, just like with the law, there is little to do except show everyone what penalties there are for doing the wrong thing and letting them decide whether or not to follow those rules. So examples are made of some so the rest can better realize that their actions have consequences. The good of the many ultimately outweighs the good of the one or the few. We each have choices on how we live our life and ultimately the responsibility for those choices are our own. That's how I see it anyway. I don't blame god for my mistakes, and I know we have done far worse to ourselves than god has ever been blamed for. Mind you I believe in god but not in religion, I'm more of an agnostic. So I tend to look at everything and try to piece together the big picture. So I know that from a strictly Christian point of view you don't really have that many ways to view god. But I think you should look at it from the point of an enlightended clergyman and study the message more than the perceived event. Much like legends the stories are based on some facts but they were written to give a specific moral message and I think is what many confuse with the actual message. Which was the point I tried to get across by refering to other myths like the greek legends of Hercules, intended as a hero but through the moral viewpoint of the people who wrote the story. Similarly the stories of the bible were written by people who considered such extreme punishments as good. It's only when you look at how the same stories are reflected in other cultures and religions that you can get a better and less biased sense of the story. Back on topic though, from an atheist point of view many would just dismiss the stories of the bible as just stories and only refer to them in arguments with the religious. But this belies that much of the bible, though colored by the opinions and intent of those who wrote those stories, is based around actual events. Additionally it doesn't change the moral of those stories and then it just becomes a question if you think the morals of those stories are revelant or not. To this end we may agree or disagree but like any form of wisdom I think it has the right to be considered just like any other.

Interesting, so you believe God needs to be perceived as good? Doesn't that go in the face of the old testament? Consider, good and evil are human concepts that applies to us more than anything else because you can't be good or evil without choice. And we should also point out that most religions have a loop hole given in the form of last rights. Basically right up to the point of death you can ask god's forgiveness and it will be given. So people who go to hell basically put themselves there by being unrepentant, otherwise they would have been sent to purgatory instead of hell and eventually been able to go to heaven once they had paid for their sins. As for influencing, again I make the comparison to laws. Simply put without interfering with free will how is it possible to stop people from making their own mistakes? I put to you that it isn't possible. Just like how we have laws and regulations for our society, but simply knowing them and knowing the consequence of breaking those laws doesn't stop people from making the wrong decisions. Really, if that was possible then we wouldn't have any crime. As long as free will is a factor there is nothing god could do to save your soul if you don't want to be saved. All god can do is leave the door open for you. Really, I never understood why some people could accept the idea that we have free will but not the responsibility that goes along with it. Even for atheists, who have no deity to blame, this is sometimes a problem. But perhaps it's part of our human faults that we seek external things to blame. It is also your choice but I don't believe you are puting the events, like the great flood, into perspective. There were things besides sinners that god had destroyed for example. Not to mention we should remember the original meanings of the biblical words we keep throwing around like hell. Point being it's good to keep some historical perspective because ultimately, even among the faithful, we must remember the bible was written by people and not god. The ideals and concepts may indeed be directly from god but we must remember the message was received and interpreted by people with very different values to what we have now. To them it may very well have taken mass destruction to get the point across. Humans can be extremely stubborn after all. Even today there are many instance in which people have to die before anything gets done to fix it. To blame god for this would only ignore the responsibility we have to our own choices. Like the point I made about Hercules and how the greeks considered him a hero. But if we read the original story he would come off as something very different from our perspective.

It is a good analysis, though not the only way to view it. Mainly that argument assumes god has to gain knowledge like we do by experience, which would basically imply that god isn't omnipotent. For example if god is truly omnipotent then god would already know what it is like to walk in another's shoes, all is really needed is for god to recall our memories like god's own. Like the saying that god is everywhere and everything. A good example is the quandary posed by the balance of the universe, many physicists compare it to akin as if the universe at its birth looked into the future of its eventual end and gave birth to the balance we see now. Course how much traction that view gets is determined by whether you think there is an ultimate purpose to existence or not. Another view is that we are each a piece of god and when we go to heaven we return to the whole, which is god. But that is similar to the atheist analysis in that god would learn as we learn. It also means there really isn't a hell other than being away from god. Like the difference between light and darkness in which darkness is just the absence of the light. Course yet another view is god hasn't done anything since creation and we're just blaming god for everything regardless, going back to the free will thing to the extreme that god just created the universe and is waiting for us to evolve to the point we can contact god. Course this view doesn't sit well with people who think there should be a master plan and a specific purpose for our existence beyond existence itself. Well I'll leave it at that before I cover every possible view and start posting more mega posts

Uh, are we arguing the judao-christian beliefs only? . . . Cause there was many other flood myths from other religions and even different versions of the judao-christian version. And the bible wasn't the origin of Christianity, just a byproduct that was created centuries after the death of Christ. There are significant differences between the old and new testament and as the dead sea scrolls show a lot of other stories were left out of the bible. The bible itself has suffered through some mistranslations since its inception, like the reed sea becoming the red sea, and of course the people who wrote those stories lived very different lives from what we experience now. Parabols can be drawn from other mythology, Hercules for example by modern standards could be viewed as almost a monster but by the morals of the time period his story was written he was a hero. So I think we should take care not to take literal interpretations from the bible or any other ancient text, since our view is distorted by our modern sensibilities. Anyway, I think we can basically summarize by simply comparing god's supposed actions to that of a parent, keeping in mind that god isn't concerned with our bodies but rather our souls, which throws out pretty much all the physical arguments. The biggest hurdle though is free will, without giving us a choice then we can't have free will. But with choice comes the responsibility for those choices. (Trust me I'm summarizing about three pages of arguments here you really don't want to see my original draft ) Also consider how we were back then, how would you teach ethics to a caveman? . . . Which goes to what Ryuki has stated in how god has been perceived has changed over time, as we ourselves have changed. Everyone should remember such debates as this one is as much about our nature as trying to figure out god's. Btw, Angel's historically aren't as simple as the present church depicts them but we can have a pretty long discussion on them alone. Like the significance of the existence of Nephilim (Half Human Angels born from human mothers) for example and how they were depicted in old testament verus new. Never mind the original sources for the concepts of Angels and Demons is very different from what we think of them now. Uh, wouldn't we all be dead sinners and among the damned if that was the case? Last I checked humanity was still going and like some would say it ain't over till the fat lady sings. That's the problem with free will, without interfering with free will there isn't much that can be done other than tell us what the rules are and leave the choice to us whether we follow those rules or not. Just like the law, if someone breaks the law it doesn't mean the law failed but rather simply that someone has chosen to break the law. The law only fails if it isn't enforced, but god's law has hell as the ultimately penalty. Hmm, so what do you think purgatory is for? Only those who can't be redeemed go straight to hell, but even they are given hope of eventually getting out of hell during the final end of days, which in part explains why many ultimately see god as hope. Though of course the above is all derived from the standpoint of the religious text and those who believe, for the atheist it just illustrates the logical reasoning why people who do believe view god as ultimately positive. You don't have to believe to understand the viewpoint, though of course it does help relate.

World's Tallest Bridge Goes Up in China with the Help of Some Rockets IKEA Employee Steals $400,000 In Less Than A Year Petland Uses Puppy Mills Two Guys Jumped Off the Burj Dubai and Lived to Tell About It Genetically-Engineered Cows Produce 20% More Milk Make Your Own Hellboy Gun CERN's 'Gordon Freeman' Employee Receives Crowbar, Starts Murdering Low Cost Robot On Wheels Can Spy Baddies, Paint Them to Death Video: Go In For Migraine, End Up With Amputation Taste the Steel of My Tomahawk Skull Gauntlet!!

19-Year-Old Commits Suicide Live on Justin.tv While Commenters Egg Him On Verizon Staff Accessed Obama Cellphone Data, Became Ex-Verizon Staff Multi-Function Wheelchair Doubles As a Toilet Bruce Lee Nunchucks the Crap Out Of Ping Pong in Nokia Shill Sprint Asking Employees to Please Resign, Pretty Please 26-Foot Tall Christmas Tree Made of 43 Sharp TVs Rhys Millen Trying to Backflip a Truck Again, Releases Video of Spine-Breaking Botched Attempt First Astro Boy Trailer Brings The Robot Boot-Rocket Slipstream Keep Your Pets Frozen for Cryogenic Travel

Rocket Grenade Smashed to Bits In Flight By Quick Kill Defense System Special Forces Fireproof Modular Glove System Now For Normal Rich Guys Too An Army at a Crossroads Pentagon Hit by Unprecedented Cyber Attack Stealthy Airlift for Commandos Hey, even Islam's got Rednecks.

Sam's Club Lets You Swap Out RedRinged Xbox Hassle-Free Nintendo Goes Above and Beyond for Globe-Trotting Gamer Time Sensitive News Nab A PS3 Bundle For $200 in Amazon.com Contest A Complete Guide to Playing Video Files On Your PS3, Xbox 360 or Wii Nintendo Decides You Can Trade in Wii Speak After All Completely Superfluous NES Controller Bike Light PS3 Firmware 2.53 Hits Tomorrow, Supersizes Flash Riff Rocker USB Mini Guitar Game Controller Lightning Review Yobo FC3 Plus Plays NES, SNES and Genesis Cartridges

World's Tallest Bridge Goes Up in China with the Help of Some Rockets IKEA Employee Steals $400,000 In Less Than A Year Petland Uses Puppy Mills Two Guys Jumped Off the Burj Dubai and Lived to Tell About It Genetically-Engineered Cows Produce 20% More Milk Make Your Own Hellboy Gun CERN's 'Gordon Freeman' Employee Receives Crowbar, Starts Murdering Low Cost Robot On Wheels Can Spy Baddies, Paint Them to Death Video: Go In For Migraine, End Up With Amputation Taste the Steel of My Tomahawk Skull Gauntlet!!

19-Year-Old Commits Suicide Live on Justin.tv While Commenters Egg Him On Verizon Staff Accessed Obama Cellphone Data, Became Ex-Verizon Staff Multi-Function Wheelchair Doubles As a Toilet Bruce Lee Nunchucks the Crap Out Of Ping Pong in Nokia Shill Sprint Asking Employees to Please Resign, Pretty Please 26-Foot Tall Christmas Tree Made of 43 Sharp TVs Rhys Millen Trying to Backflip a Truck Again, Releases Video of Spine-Breaking Botched Attempt Do not view this link if you don't yet know what "Fellating" means? Warning this may corrupt your mind irreversibly... First Astro Boy Trailer Brings The Robot Boot-Rocket Slipstream Keep Your Pets Frozen for Cryogenic Travel

A Call for Revolution Against Beta Culture AMD Shows Off Phenom II Processor's Headroom, By Overclocking to 5GHz -Insert Apple Joke* Woz Really Does Everything On His Segway 10 Really Cool Windows 7 Media Center Features Patent For Gesture-Controlled Phones Could Be Nokia's Answer to Touch Sagem Orga Crams AGPS System Aboard SIM Card For Non-GPS Phones Mercedes' Web-Connected myComand Takes on BMW iDrive Gas Pump Blue Screen of Death is Poo Poo Inducing 17,000 Square Foot LED Billboard Flipped On at 1 Times Square, Wraps Around Entire Building Forkbombs and Other Things Not to Type in Terminals

(edit: > This was posted before seeing Ryuki's reply) Not the point, it illustrated that the original statement was equally impotent because both views are based on belief. You can not prove what is unknown! Consider, you're getting mad just because someone has a different view than yours. You're just portraying yourself as being intolerant. Is that what you really want? No because your statement is incomplete, we're a species that has both the capacity for creation and destruction. Without both we could not have free will! Again, free will. This doesn't make god any more culpable than your parents for letting you make your own choices in life. This is just playing the blame game. Unless you don't believe in free will then this argument is pointless. So there is no good in life as well? This goes back to the old light and dark, good and evil argument. You can't have one without the other, everything in the universe seeks balance! It's like asking why we're sentient? Without the ability to experience and make choices we could never learn or even think. Just my opinion but wouldn't that defeat the purpose in creation? What would be the point if we just go to the finish line and not experience anything along the way? I hope you don't really believe that but like I said before everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just hope people can understand that other people have theirs as well and as far as faith goes logic can be applied both ways.

You're hardly alone in that regard Eether, I for one believe in god (for my own reasons from events in my life) but I do not believe in religion. The danger is many would assume the intolerance is just from the religious but atheists can be just as intolerant, if you ever heard of the term militant atheist? There is also the backlash from people who feel like they are being judged, like during the present gay protesting in the US there have been such events as burning of crosses, taking an old woman's crucifix and stomping on it in front of her, yelling for the religious to leave the country, burning bibles in front of churches, physical attacks on church goers, etc. Intolerance goes both ways, and often we forget where the middle ground is and instead wind up at the extremes. Unfortunately attacking beliefs often involves attacking the believer as well.