The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

God’s right to govern the Universe this right doesn’t come from the fact that He is all loving, all powerful, all just, etc. but from the fact that He is creator and by a natural tenure holds everything as His own. Therefore we can conclude that His every action is just. I used the example of “cutting my lawn”. It is my lawn, now someone may disagree and believe that I am hurting baby trees and call me unjust but it is my lawn, therefore I can cut it if I please. Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just. This is an action I believe we have all subscribed to by our living.

using this logic is it OK to kill your dog because it is YOUR dog? what about your child? Infact the child might be a more fitting example since the child came from your seed. Is it OK to kill your child if you please because it is YOUR child?

[Habit7]

Science is objective. Scientists can be subjective.

Science is the conclusions of scientists, you can't divorce the two, one flows out off the other. Therefore your statement contradicts itself: subjective scientists propose objective science? Won't it be that subjective scientists propose subjective science?

it does not contradict itself, no matter how much you would like it to. No more than you saying Christianity is perfect but it's adherents are not.

You denying the contradictory nature of your statement is not a refutation, it is your subjective opinion. Christianity is perfect because Christ was perfect, Christianity does not propose to make perfect adherents here on this earth but repentant adherents.

How do I own a claim when I quote it?
you claim X and I show that another person claimed Y - how am I owning either viewpoint?

By referencing Y you are saying that it is relevant to the discussion. If someone claims that the sum of 1+1 is 2, you bringing up another sum, even though you didnt propose it, means you think it relevant to the discussion and should be considered.

1+1=2 is objective. Your claim is subjective. I quoted another claim that is equally as subjective but makes a contradicting claim to yours and asked to show me which, if any, of the subjective claims is right. It is relevant, but in no way my claim. Both sides are relevant in an argument.

If you are asking "which subjective claim is right", then there is an objective truth to the subject, and can only be discovered by investigation.
Following your logic, if I were to say that rum n' raisin is the best ice cream flavour and Cecil were to say vanilla is the best then you would say they are both subjective statements. However to understand the statements as objective claims then an investigation of the claims according to objective parameters such as nutrition value, consistency, ratio of natural ingredient, etc would bring an objective truth. I have shown the objective superiority of Christianity over Islam and other religions by objective parameters, not based on how it feels to me, or what I experienced or any other subjective parameter.

You kinda believe all religious people are one particular way, and whether or not they follow your stereotype, you pigeonhole them and have them defending a position they dont hold. I guess it is best you can do since you cannot refute these objective claims so you just parrot the first opposing view you could find irrespective of whether it make sense or not.

and what if both are wrong?

The Christian and the Muslim will both be wrong on an objective matter, not a subjective one like you believe it is.

Perhaps he really is the sun god, perhaps he isn't. I agree that consensus does not affect how true something is, however it was considered to be true for thousands of years BCE and so it was true in the minds of the believers.

(Overlooking your logical gymnastics ) Well I guess we found out they was objectively wrong.

There appear to be holes in your logic.

This is obviously subjective statement.

[megadoc1]

God’s right to govern the Universe this right doesn’t come from the fact that He is all loving, all powerful, all just, etc. but from the fact that He is creator and by a natural tenure holds everything as His own. Therefore we can conclude that His every action is just. I used the example of “cutting my lawn”. It is my lawn, now someone may disagree and believe that I am hurting baby trees and call me unjust but it is my lawn, therefore I can cut it if I please. Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just. This is an action I believe we have all subscribed to by our living.

using this logic is it OK to kill your dog because it is YOUR dog? what about your child? Infact the child might be a more fitting example since the child came from your seed. Is it OK to kill your child if you please because it is YOUR child?

yes it would be wrong for me to kill my child because there is a law giver that's says its wrong to do so and that's God! but who's gonna judge God for what he does? you? the point is there is no one to judge God for his actions

lets put it this way so you dont nit pick, if I created something then decided to destroy it, there is no one that I need to answer to

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

God’s right to govern the Universe this right doesn’t come from the fact that He is all loving, all powerful, all just, etc. but from the fact that He is creator and by a natural tenure holds everything as His own. Therefore we can conclude that His every action is just. I used the example of “cutting my lawn”. It is my lawn, now someone may disagree and believe that I am hurting baby trees and call me unjust but it is my lawn, therefore I can cut it if I please. Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just. This is an action I believe we have all subscribed to by our living.

using this logic is it OK to kill your dog because it is YOUR dog? what about your child? Infact the child might be a more fitting example since the child came from your seed. Is it OK to kill your child if you please because it is YOUR child?

yes it would be wrong for me to kill my child because there is a law giver that's says its wrong to do so and that's God buts who's gonna judge God for what he does? you? the point is there is no one to judge God for his actions

lets put it this way so you dont nit pick, if I created something then decided to destroy it there is no one that I need to answer to

ah now I think I understand!
the only reason you don't go killing everyone is because you will have to answer to God about it?
If I didnt have to answer to the police then it would be just for me to pee on the pavement?

[megadoc1]

God’s right to govern the Universe this right doesn’t come from the fact that He is all loving, all powerful, all just, etc. but from the fact that He is creator and by a natural tenure holds everything as His own. Therefore we can conclude that His every action is just. I used the example of “cutting my lawn”. It is my lawn, now someone may disagree and believe that I am hurting baby trees and call me unjust but it is my lawn, therefore I can cut it if I please. Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just. This is an action I believe we have all subscribed to by our living.

using this logic is it OK to kill your dog because it is YOUR dog? what about your child? Infact the child might be a more fitting example since the child came from your seed. Is it OK to kill your child if you please because it is YOUR child?

yes it would be wrong for me to kill my child because there is a law giver that's says its wrong to do so and that's God buts who's gonna judge God for what he does? you? the point is there is no one to judge God for his actions

lets put it this way so you dont nit pick, if I created something then decided to destroy it there is no one that I need to answer to

ah now I think I understand!
the only reason you don't go killing everyone is because you will have to answer to God about it?
If I didnt have to answer to the police then it would be just for me to pee on the pavement?

no you missed it ! the reason I don't go killing it because I choose love,killing everyone is not love

The privilege of being a human is having the capacity to exhibit true love which must be a free choice to be truly called love. So God created us like him – it is the only way love can be exhibited - for God is love. Being like God means we have freewill and we can choose God or No God. This choice allows for the existence of evil. Could not the Almighty God find another way to do this? The answer is yes but then we will all be robots. God made us like Him because that is the only way love can be shown. There is only one way to be like God.

I don't pee on the pavement because it simply just not the proper thing so even if a law is passed I wont be affected

[Chimera]

taken from facebook


Phillip Whiteman
2 hours ago ·
I thought the time is right to let all my friends and family that i have not spoken to know what happened
I flew out of Trinidad Friday night landing in Newark tav 530am sat morning
I had not been feeling well for about a week , visiting the doctor twice and we both assumed it was acid reflux as i have always had this problem. I was given a shot and some medicine that seemed to relieve the burning in my chest, hence the thought of acid reflux.
When i collected my bags and approached customs , i felt light headed and passed out
I awoke on the floor and was told an ambulance was coming for me to take me to hospital
I could not breathe and my chest was in so much pain, worst pain i have ever felt. As though the weight of world was pushing me down!!
i was taken to the ER where EKG blood, CAT scan and heart X-ray was taken,
Nothing came up negative. More blood and EKG was taken an hour later still negative. I was to board a plane for Berlin at 545pm and i asked ER Dr if i all was good?
he said yes, heart good , blood good, lungs good!!!
TEXTED WIFE AND LET HER KNOW .RELIEF!!!
I asked if i could leave to catch my flight, he indicated they need to run more test but could only be done on monday as it was weekend.
I had a friend who came to pick me up between my flight and when he heard the news he told me he was heading home and my brother in lW WOULD CHECK ME IN THE afternoon since i had to spend weekend in the hospital.
My brother in law was on his way already and decided to come right away
I was sent to a ward and put in a room for patients not in serious condition
I did not have any monitors hooked up to me at the time
THis hospital turned out to be a catholic hospital and a priest heard i was a Catholic and came and gave me communion and the sacraments
he left i began to eat a sandwich my brother-in law brought for me
I started to feel pain in my chest again and i thought again acid reflux and i need to sit up straight
I sat on the end of the bed and told LINTON ( brother in law) that something was wrong and was starting to have pain.
He got up and came beside me at which time i blacked out again
He ran a called the nurses
It was a heart attack
what happened after is what he told me. I was diffibulatored ( wrong spelling)
three times to revive me
I was taken immediately to the ICU and had a stent put in my heart
I had blockage of the main artery of 99% YES 99%
THe term the Dr used was " I had a widow maker heart attack"
Look it up


I am ok now just have to rest for a few weeks and can not fly till i get all clear
So i am in NYC for the time being

FOR THOSE who DOUBT GOD EXISTS
DO NOT
this did not happen on first flight nor second one
It di not happen in my friends car
all of which was death
LINTON being in the room and deciding to come right away instead of later
The priest coming and see me
The ER Dr not discharging me
My heart starting back in Airport after i collapsed
THIS IS NOT LUCK or coincidence
I have been given a second and third life
GOD alone knows what he has in store for me
he did not sand above me but beside me to catch me and push me back into this world
I hope all understand what my last set of posts meant
THANK YOU ALL MY WONDERFUL FAMILY AND FRIENDS
I AM TRUELY A BLESSED PERSON TO HAVE YOU ALL

[pioneer]

[bluefete]

^^^ Trust you eh, Pios!! LOL.

[sweetiepaper]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

You denying the contradictory nature of your statement is not a refutation, it is your subjective opinion.

and it is your subjective opinion that you are right.

I am sorry if you cannot understand that science is objective but scientists can be subjective.

How do I own a claim when I quote it?
you claim X and I show that another person claimed Y - how am I owning either viewpoint?

By referencing Y you are saying that it is relevant to the discussion. If someone claims that the sum of 1+1 is 2, you bringing up another sum, even though you didnt propose it, means you think it relevant to the discussion and should be considered.

1+1=2 is objective. Your claim is subjective. I quoted another claim that is equally as subjective but makes a contradicting claim to yours and asked to show me which, if any, of the subjective claims is right. It is relevant, but in no way my claim. Both sides are relevant in an argument.

If you are asking "which subjective claim is right", then there is an objective truth to the subject, and can only be discovered by investigation.

so you agree that I do not own a statement just because I quoted it in reference. (All these red herrings you usually throw I didn't want you to forget my point )

Following your logic, if I were to say that rum n' raisin is the best ice cream flavour and Cecil were to say vanilla is the best then you would say they are both subjective statements. However to understand the statements as objective claims then an investigation of the claims according to objective parameters such as nutrition value, consistency, ratio of natural ingredient, etc would bring an objective truth.

firstly saying which is "the best ice cream flavour" is purely subjective. If you ask which flavour of a particular brand has the highest fat content, then you can derive an objective answer.

I have shown the objective superiority of Christianity over Islam and other religions by objective parameters, not based on how it feels to me, or what I experienced or any other subjective parameter.

you keep saying that but none of those who have disagreed with you seem to be convinced.

As AdamB stated, yes there is evidence that Jesus existed, but where is the proof that he was actually the son of God?

You kinda believe all religious people are one particular way, and whether or not they follow your stereotype, you pigeonhole them and have them defending a position they dont hold. I guess it is best you can do since you cannot refute these objective claims so you just parrot the first opposing view you could find irrespective of whether it make sense or not.

it is sad that you think that.

I do not believe all religious people are one particular way. I am not sure what position they don't hold that I have them defending.

What objective claims? I think you mean the subjective claims based on faith and the accompanying rationale?

If you make a claim I am merely trying to follow the logic behind it. Many truth claims are being made here so I would like to compare and contrast them.

Sorry if I'm making you uncomfortable.

and what if both are wrong?

The Christian and the Muslim will both be wrong on an objective matter, not a subjective one like you believe it is.

in some cases you cannot necessarily be wrong on things that are subjective. e.g. "which is the best flavour" may have no right or wrong answer.

Perhaps he really is the sun god, perhaps he isn't. I agree that consensus does not affect how true something is, however it was considered to be true for thousands of years BCE and so it was true in the minds of the believers.

(Overlooking your logical gymnastics ) Well I guess we found out they was objectively wrong.

how do we know? put aside your beliefs for a while (in science that is called "ceteris paribus") you cannot disprove that a sun god for the ancient eqyptians didn't exist. It surely existed in their minds!

There appear to be holes in your logic.

This is obviously subjective statement.

yes it is. That does not mean it has to be untrue though!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just.

the reason I don't go killing it because I choose love,killing everyone is not love

God is love, but he can kill everyone and be just, however killing everyone is not love?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around your concept here.

I don't pee on the pavement because it simply just not the proper thing so even if a law is passed I wont be affected

is that social morality?

[megadoc1]

Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just.

the reason I don't go killing it because I choose love,killing everyone is not love

God is love, but he can kill everyone and be just, however you killing everyone is not love?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around your concept here.

be careful that you don't willingly find yourself misunderstanding me
God is love ,he is also creator! he will be just even if he destroys his creation. me on the other hand will be wrong for killing another human like my self something I definitely did not create

I don't pee on the pavement because it simply just not the proper thing so even if a law is passed I wont be affected

is that social morality?

actually its loving thy neighbor as I love myself

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just.

the reason I don't go killing it because I choose love,killing everyone is not love

God is love, but he can kill everyone and be just, however you killing everyone is not love?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around your concept here.

God is love ,he is also creator he will be just even if he destroys his creation. me on the other hand will be wrong for killing another human like my self something I definitely did not create

you didn't create the grass either but you said

I used the example of “cutting my lawn”. It is my lawn, now someone may disagree and believe that I am hurting baby trees and call me unjust but it is my lawn, therefore I can cut it if I please.

I don't pee on the pavement because it simply just not the proper thing so even if a law is passed I wont be affected

is that social morality?

actually its loving thy neighbor as I love myself

what of someone living a non christian society? They wouldnt pee on the pavement either, where did their morals come from?

[megadoc1]

Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just.

the reason I don't go killing it because I choose love,killing everyone is not love

God is love, but he can kill everyone and be just, however you killing everyone is not love?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around your concept here.

God is love ,he is also creator he will be just even if he destroys his creation. me on the other hand will be wrong for killing another human like my self something I definitely did not create

you didn't create the grass either but you said

I used the example of “cutting my lawn”. It is my lawn, now someone may disagree and believe that I am hurting baby trees and call me unjust but it is my lawn, therefore I can cut it if I please.

yeah whats the problem? I used the example of my lawn on my property ,something that I planted , showing that I can do anything with it and not have to answer to anyone...its a small example to describe how God can destroy what is his and not have to answer to anyone !...it was just an illustration thats all

I don't pee on the pavement because it simply just not the proper thing so even if a law is passed I wont be affected

is that social morality?

actually its loving thy neighbor as I love myself

what of someone living a non christian society? They wouldn't pee on the pavement either, where did their morals come from?

since you brought it up tell me whats morally wrong with peeing on the pavement and we can work from there

[megadoc1]

were the slaves mentioned in Leviticus loved as thy neighbor?

quite possibly ,as long as you don't attempt to make those slaves analogous to the African slave trade

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

were the slaves mentioned in Leviticus loved as thy neighbor?

quite possibly ,as long as you don't attempt to make those slaves analogous to the African slave trade

I remember you claimed earlier that the slavery in the Bible was some kind of happy sugar-coated slavery. But slavery is slavery.

owning another human being was morally correct?

beating another human and they die three days later is morally correct?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

also why is it ok to enslave a foreigner but not the people of Isreal? Aren't all men created equal?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just.

the reason I don't go killing it because I choose love,killing everyone is not love

God is love, but he can kill everyone and be just, however you killing everyone is not love?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around your concept here.

God is love ,he is also creator he will be just even if he destroys his creation. me on the other hand will be wrong for killing another human like my self something I definitely did not create

you didn't create the grass either but you said

I used the example of “cutting my lawn”. It is my lawn, now someone may disagree and believe that I am hurting baby trees and call me unjust but it is my lawn, therefore I can cut it if I please.

yeah whats the problem? I used the example of my lawn on my property ,something that I planted , showing that I can do anything with it and not have to answer to anyone...its a small example to describe how God can destroy what is his and not have to answer to anyone !...it was just an illustration thats all

yeah but you still did not create the grass. You claim the grass is God's creation just like any other living thing just because you owned it and could kill it if you wanted.

I don't pee on the pavement because it simply just not the proper thing so even if a law is passed I wont be affected

is that social morality?

actually its loving thy neighbor as I love myself

what of someone living a non christian society? They wouldn't pee on the pavement either, where did their morals come from?

since you brought it up tell me whats morally wrong with peeing on the pavement and we can work from there

it is unhygienic for you and others using the pavement.

[megadoc1]

yeah but you still did not create the grass. You claim the grass is God's creation just like any other living thing just because you owned it and could kill it if you wanted.

it is not evil,immoral or UN-Godly to kill grass ok

it is unhygienic for you and others using the pavement.

ok but even if it is unhygienic, if society sees it as an ok thing to do eventuality it would be ok to do right? just like a man having sexual relationship with a man is ok in today's world ...in trinidad we have laws for spitting on the pavement maybe because its unhygienic but if you go next door you would encounter people spiting right next to food that they are preparing to eat normal normal..
my point is, regard peeing on the pavement,if I dont like something for myself I should not want it for others and this would be the same even if I go into a society where it is socially acceptable to do so

[Dizzy28]

Friday lulz for a stiff thread

[Habit7]

I am sorry if you cannot understand that science is objective but scientists can be subjective.

Unable to defend the illogicality of your statement, you appeal to pity then you will claim later on that religious ppl only claim to blind faith and you claim to fact

so you agree that I do not own a statement just because I quoted it in reference. (All these red herrings you usually throw I didn't want you to forget my point )

Nope you still own that statement if you bring it up. Since now you recognise the point is a nonsense you are trying to disown it, but if it was actually refuting you wont go congratulating the author who made it without knowledge of the current conversation, you would have congratulate yourself for referencing it. This is something you have done already, you must be able to take the good with bad, com'on.

firstly saying which is "the best ice cream flavour" is purely subjective.

No there is the best ice cream flavour by subjective standards and objective standards. I outline what the objective standards could be, not all flavours are equal. Com'on Duane keep up.

I have shown the objective superiority of Christianity over Islam and other religions by objective parameters, not based on how it feels to me, or what I experienced or any other subjective parameter.

you keep saying that but none of those who have disagreed with you seem to be convinced.

Since when convincing others mean that something is true? You just said "consensus does not affect how true something is" so why are you appealing to it now?

I do not believe all religious people are one particular way. I am not sure what position they don't hold that I have them defending.

Do you believe that religious people have a faith that is based on objective truths that points to a real supernatural being?

What objective claims? I think you mean the subjective claims based on faith and the accompanying rationale?
If you make a claim I am merely trying to follow the logic behind it. Many truth claims are being made here so I would like to compare and contrast them.

Lets say I really was making subjective claims: God of the Bible is real because I feel His real or because I personally know Him. How is that any different from the scientists you claim to be subjective while developing an objective science? Then religion can be just as objective, following your logic? Then this would conversation and your prior position would be worthless because religion is just as objective as science.

But I am sure, with you foot in your mouth, you are still going to see subjective scientists developing objective science but subjective religious people developing subjective religion. And in so doing you would prove that within your own criteria you prove yourself wrong yet you will still illogically hold a position.

and what if both are wrong?

The Christian and the Muslim will both be wrong on an objective matter, not a subjective one like you believe it is.

in some cases you cannot necessarily be wrong on things that are subjective. e.g. "which is the best flavour" may have no right or wrong answer.

So then why have you been asking a question for the past +100 pages that you know is subjective?

how do we know? put aside your beliefs for a while (in science that is called "ceteris paribus") you cannot disprove that a sun god for the ancient eqyptians didn't exist. It surely existed in their minds!

Because in theology we understand God to be the greatest being that could possibly exist. And for a god to allow their most faithful followers to die out and their civilization to be crushed then that proves that their god was unable to stop this and this makes him not the greatest possible being, regardless of whatever they conceive of him in their minds.

There appear to be holes in your logic.

I am not even going to address this, the more you make this thing up as you go the more holes you make. I really pray you will come to the truth.

[megadoc1]

I remember you claimed earlier that the slavery in the Bible was some kind of happy sugar-coated slavery. But slavery is slavery.

you are trying to sensationalize slavery here as if its the African slave trade that's where you are going wrong

owning another human being was morally correct?

yes

beating another human and they die three days later is morally correct?

acceptable then, yes and its explained in what you posted below

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

however please bear in mind that this passage is not a command to beat slaves but rather conditions for punishment of the offending Israelite,perhaps as to discourage such behaviors among them
today we have First degree murder,Second degree murder ,Voluntary manslaughter and Involuntary manslaughter etc

also why is it ok to enslave a foreigner but not the people of Isreal? Aren't all men created equal?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

the verses that follows cuts out your argument that the people of israel could not be enslaved

Lev 25:47 And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:
Lev 25:48 After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him:
Lev 25:49 Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him

duane you are trying to argue something that was morally acceptable back then , having slaves back then was common practice the Jews themselves had just came out from it by the arm of God, here we have God spelling out for them how they should treat with theirs

[rspann]

Every one talks about God's ability or lack thereof(perhaps will,not ability)to stop evil,but remember he has given freedom of choice and remember there is also the evil one.These two things coupled causes all the wrongdoing and grief in the world God is able to stop it but will he be considered a tyrant then for not allowing freedom?

[Slartibartfast]

God’s right to govern the Universe this right doesn’t come from the fact that He is all loving, all powerful, all just, etc. but from the fact that He is creator and by a natural tenure holds everything as His own. Therefore we can conclude that His every action is just.

So you believe that the whole thing with Sean Luke was just? Or God allowing others some free will?

Another question. If God intervenes, under what situation will he intervene and under what situations would he leave completely alone?

And if he doesn't intervene (if he does an answer to the previous question would be adequate) what sense does it make to pray to Him/Her for good fortune (like landing a job, getting a new car, or a pretty girl etc.)?

Every one talks about God's ability or lack thereof(perhaps will,not ability)to stop evil,but remember he has given freedom of choice and remember there is also the evil one.These two things coupled causes all the wrongdoing and grief in the world God is able to stop it but will he be considered a tyrant then for not allowing freedom?

Then what is God there for? To create everyone and then punish those that do not obey (when some of the rules do not make sense to us)?

Eg. Hitler. I'm guessing this proves Gad allows complete free will with not intervention. But we can all agree that intervention would have been best. Why didn't God make Hitler die from pneumonia (like a lot of innocent babies dies from) or some other disease. You cannot deny this would have been a much better alternative to the holocaust.

[marlener]

Who's to say when and for which situation God should intervene bro,nobody said that the Sean Luke situation was just,God is just.Did you read Rd ann post,not hearing you including these factors into the equation.

[rspann]

Slartibart,change your name to God,because you in your infinite wisdom wants to tell him how he should have done it.That means that you are wiser,so you should take his role.

[redmanjp]

God’s right to govern the Universe this right doesn’t come from the fact that He is all loving, all powerful, all just, etc. but from the fact that He is creator and by a natural tenure holds everything as His own. Therefore we can conclude that His every action is just.

So you believe that the whole thing with Sean Luke was just? Or God allowing others some free will?

Another question. If God intervenes, under what situation will he intervene and under what situations would he leave completely alone?

And if he doesn't intervene (if he does an answer to the previous question would be adequate) what sense does it make to pray to Him/Her for good fortune (like landing a job, getting a new car, or a pretty girl etc.)?

He intervened 2000 yrs ago and also theirs the Flood

[megadoc1]

God’s right to govern the Universe this right doesn’t come from the fact that He is all loving, all powerful, all just, etc. but from the fact that He is creator and by a natural tenure holds everything as His own. Therefore we can conclude that His every action is just.

So you believe that the whole thing with Sean Luke was just? Or God allowing others some free will?

what happened to Sean can never be just and as mentioned before

The privilege of being a human is having the capacity to exhibit true love which must be a free choice to be truly called love. So God created us like him – it is the only way love can be exhibited - for God is love. Being like God means we have freewill and we can choose God or No God. This choice allows for the existence of evil. Could not the Almighty God find another way to do this? The answer is yes but then we will all be robots. God made us like Him because that is the only way love can be shown. There is only one way to be like God.

Another question. If God intervenes, under what situation will he intervene and under what situations would he leave completely alone?

as mentioned earlier

God could instantly stop suffering on the earth. However it will mean forcing His will on humanity. God could rule the earth like Superman. He can use His omniscience and His omnipresence and instantly stop evil wherever it happens on the earth. Humanity would be subject to Him in every way and the earth would be a beautiful place. However, we will then stop being human. So God in His eternal wisdom has chosen to rule the earth through His love – it is only then that His nature would be manifest in us.

And if he doesn't intervene (if he does an answer to the previous question would be adequate) what sense does it make to pray to Him/Her for good fortune (like landing a job, getting a new car, or a pretty girl etc.)?

he did intervene by showing us love thru Jesus and the work he has done for us

[AdamB]

were the slaves mentioned in Leviticus loved as thy neighbor?

quite possibly ,as long as you don't attempt to make those slaves analogous to the African slave trade

I remember you claimed earlier that the slavery in the Bible was some kind of happy sugar-coated slavery. But slavery is slavery.

owning another human being was morally correct?

beating another human and they die three days later is morally correct?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

also why is it ok to enslave a foreigner but not the people of Isreal? Aren't all men created equal?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

They (especially the Jews) have changed, taken away, added ie corrupted the bible....then you blame GOD for the seemingly unjust revelations / laws.

[Habit7]

[meccalli]

As a christian, this is disgusting behavior. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..some people really need to look at themselves and see who they really following.