Hey Christmarine, let me ask you a question. I'll take you up on the other issue through our private message-boards, but I'd like to ask you this in full view of the forum because it's a very interesting question that you've probably never thought of before. You say all fall short of the glory of god, because god is without sin. But is that because he's automatic, and in fact devoid of choice? For it seems there is really no choice in being a god: the universe needed you, your attributes and characteristics are non-negotiable, and in fact as you like to point out god is omniscient, meaning he knows EVERYTHING. So if you knew everything, how could you make a choice? For you'd know both outcomes before you made the choice, to an INFINITE degree, and therefore be without the uncertainty REQUIRED in making a choice; for making a choice means on some level you don't know the outcome, otherwise it wouldn't be a choice; merely execution of protocol, like that of a computer program.
o ultimately, my point is that if this is true, then what right does a being INCAPABLE of making mistakes have in judging one who HE HIMSELF endowed with the diminished faculties necessary in facilitating this propensity for mistakes, even inevitability; especially when this 'perfect' being has no idea how he would behave under similar circumstances, unless he diminished his OWN faculties to the point of being capable in making a mistake, and thus being vulnerable to sin? You see, the original sin was CHOICE, which I think is the holiest of ALL faculties.
You people are so rude its unbelievable. whoever posted this on i-am-bored and those who are insulting the Christain religion, you're insulting a good percentage of the american population. and thank you, ChristMarine, for your insight
I am not weak minded and it doesn't bother me that your mad at me for no reason. Your a bit defensive on the matter to act in the manner you did. WEll I've actually studied the Bible and I don't take peoples words for things. I think its harder not to believe in God. And Im not debating whether or not the song was creepy or not, its not important. However; you say that I am retarded and blind led sheep. The Bible is full of prophecies that have became true, not to mention the historical, botanical, cultural, grammatical and every other -al that has never been proven wrong; even by secular historians. Here is only one small example of the divine accuracy of God's Word. Psalms 22 a Messianic prophetic psalm which says Jesus's hands and feet will be pierced, speaking obviously about crucifixion. This is a "historical" document that was written around 1050 B.C by King David. Well is it not ironic that crucifixion was not even been invented until 600 B.C. Divine or extreme chance?
And I honestly appreciate Suicism the courtesy and respect you show me. I am not pointing fingers at anyone and I honestly am hoping every one stays open minded, thats all. Anyways Suicism, thats a great question. And I guess this could go back to the same type of philisophical question which says God can't be omnipotent because he can't fail. However, to me this only affirms his omnipotence. And I agree with you to an extent about knowing both decisions. But God doesn't always look in the future to what we do. For example, he repented when he made man during the time of NOah because of the wickedness of the people. Of course, he could have known this if he had wanted to. So in away he does make know the right choice to make. Although, he didn't have to follow the protocol when it came to sending His Son Jesus to die for a people who does not always love Him. So I agree, but I would much rather serve a God who is all powerful and all knowing, rather than others. Thx for your time buddy
You mention the Jews there, and one thing I always find convincing is why Yahweh did not come down to confirm to them that this Jesus was their Messiah, especially considering the prophecy of King David you cite! God should have come down himself and made it clear, because according to the old Jewish myths that was always they way he communicated with them: burning bush with Moses, Ten Commandments, visions of specification for Noah's Ark, and even visions later by Peter, wherein he describes the end times. But christ, the messiah, WHOEVER he was going to be, was suppossed to replace this divine link between the Jews and Yahweh, and make obsolete their need for animal sacrifice as well, for he was to take their place as a "sacrificial lamb" of God. But why not tell the Jews this directly? Why should they believe this rebel, troublemaker, one of many proclaiming themselves to be "messiah" at the time? It wasn't really fair for God to jerk them around like this:
"one day, you're 'chosen;' and you know this, because I have instructed you on it Personally, and many of your great prophets like Moses seem to believe it; and the next day, I'm sending down my son, who you don't know and WON'T know, and many of you will encourage his execution, but I'm not gonna tell you all this; instead, I'm just gonna stop talking to you and let you sort it all out. He is now the saviour, and you're no longer chosen, but you're just going to have to take HIS word for it. I'm gonna take a nap 'till the apocolypse." You know, something like that doesn't seem too far from the truth. It puts these visions of "God" that Moses and others recieved really in a position of arbitrary interpretation, just like everything else. When do you know it's god, or not? People tend to like precedent. Jesus suppossedly didn't have precedent, and he acted on his own visions anyway.