This is the truth. I'm sorry but it is. I don't want one of those whole 'oh we don't know everything so God could exist' bs either. We know, a lot. It's religious fanatics that don't and usually refuse to understand concepts of logic. So here I go. This should be good.

First off, I would just like to say that souls and spirits do not exist. All that the 'soul' is, is a bunch of electrical impulses the neurons in your brain make. The reason that these synapses occur is because your body is made up of tiny little cells that use glucose (what almost all food breaks down to) to power the larger organism. Once you are dead your cells will no longer power these neurons, which means no more thought processes can happen. This means the thing that makes you, you has stopped and you are now just muscle tissue that is waiting to be decomposed.

If there was a soul or some sort of life after death, you would need the electrical impulses in your brain in order to think, which means you would need your body's cells. That brings me to a question. Why would you keep on living, but all the millions of cells that keep you alive and make you who you are, would die? Do you think an individual cell has a soul? no, it clearly doesn't. So why the hell would a big group of cells entitle a soul?

Also, all of this religious crap is fake shit made by humans in order to make themselves feel better. All religions are just ideas made by people and perpetuated by people. For example here are links that point out all the contradictions in the various books of 'god.'

The Bible

the torah

the qu'ran

I know that no matter how much evidence and logic and actual thinking is thrown out there, some of you will still believe in these ideas created by people for people.

But that's okay, because every SINGLE time science and religion have debated something; logic and science has ALWAYS been right about it.

So sorry you lose. There is nothing. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING after you die.

Which is depressing, but it should give you incentive to live life to its fullest.

quote:

god never interfeared with job's trial since that was part of the deal he made with satan satan could test job in anyway as long as job didnt die.

OK, so what you're saying is that god was only unjust to the extent that he permitted satan to test Job by killing his family, and then rewarding him with a new wife and set of children. I still wouldn't be very comfortable with that.

quote:

but i will add this his wife did try to turn him away from god and she was unjust.

Again, presumably what you mean is that god empowered satan to test Job, and that his wife didn't want to die, so tried to prevent her own death at the hands of satan. How very unreasonable.

quote:

its not replacing them hes just getting more kids from his wife.

Yes, but he's getting another wife too. My point is, that in testing Job's faith, his wife and children die - and they don't get anything out of it, like, say, salvation, or a second wife and another round of children. In my opinion, this demonstrates that god is not just - or at least not very concerned with collatoral damage.

god never interfeared with job's trial since that was part of the deal he made with satan satan could test job in anyway as long as job didnt die. im not sure but i dont m=know anyone who can be sure enough to answer that jobs wife and kids got salvation but i will add this his wife did try to turn him away from god and she was unjust.

quote:

its not replacing them hes just getting more kids from his wife.

Yes, but he's getting another wife too. My point is, that in testing Job's faith, his wife and children die - and they don't get anything out of it, like, say, salvation, or a second wife and another round of children. In my opinion, this demonstrates that god is not just - or at least not very concerned with collatoral damage.

quote:

its not replacing them hes just getting more kids from his wife.

in other words, replacing them.

its not replacing them hes just getting more kids from his wife.

quote:

now i didnt say tht they were raplaced did i?

No, but that is the implication in the Book of Job - I refer you to Job 42:13-4

quote:

13He had also seven sons and three daughters.

14And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch.

quote:

oh how quick you are to for get the rotting flesh eating worms and more.

I'm not entirely sure how this applies to the point I was making, except to make it yet more valid.

wtf. are. you. trying. to. say.

flesh eating worms? wtf does that have to do with anything??????????????

quote:

No, but neither did the people who wrote the bible. A little fire for eternity? Obviously they've never experience drug-induced torture, or the much more subtle forms of torture invented by the Japanese. Crucifixion is actually relatively balmy compared to these, I'm lead to believe.

oh how quick you are to for get the rotting flesh eating worms and more.

quote:

"Hi guys. Sorry that you were killed. I'd like to introduce the woman that god gave me to replace you when you died. We lived a long and happy life together. I did miss you on occasion though."

Yep, that would be comfortable. Very heavenly.

now i didnt say tht they were raplaced did i?

oh and ill get back to u on every thing tht i havent answered prbly by fri.

quote:

how are we free since u put resposibility in god for our actions?

No, I don't believe in god. But you, who do believe in god, have a number of beliefs that are contradictory. You believe that god created the earth (and the universe) so you believe that he presented man with all possible choices. God is responsible for what kinds of free-choice you have. Let us consider an example. You are tied in a straight-jacket, strapped down in a padded cell. You do not have the choice to take your own life. But, if you are not strapped down, you can continually run into walls until you suffer a brain haemmorage. Not a nice example, but one that illustrates the problem. You see, god doesn't actually give you free will - he sets out the choices and maps out the consquences of those choices. He creates you, influences you in every way so that, when it comes to any decision, you could only have acted one way. What I guess I'm trying to say, is that free will is not really compatible with god. But that's another can of worms.

quote:

and further more u hve no idea what intolerable pain is my friend.

No, but neither did the people who wrote the bible. A little fire for eternity? Obviously they've never experience drug-induced torture, or the much more subtle forms of torture invented by the Japanese. Crucifixion is actually relatively balmy compared to these, I'm lead to believe.

quote:

he didnt bother with concern because he knew where they were and tht he might see them again someday

YES - BUT GOD KILLED THEM FOR NO VERY GOOD REASON. Regardless of his desire to illustrate faith, he killed several people and then chose to replace them with alternate wives, sons and daughters. Can't you see how monstrous that is? And what would heaven be like, when Job arrives (except of course because there is no time, he can't arrive, leave or anything else relating to actions) how is he going to reconcile his old family with his new family?

"Hi guys. Sorry that you were killed. I'd like to introduce the woman that god gave me to replace you when you died. We lived a long and happy life together. I did miss you on occasion though."

Yep, that would be comfortable. Very heavenly.

quote:

You also approve of it.

Indeed, and as Martin Luther King said, 'unearned suffering is redemptive'. This is just a horrifying remark; it actually physically pains me to hear someone say it.

I'm pretty sure that just because someone has not experienced 'intolerable pain' does not mean they cannot have empathy.

So you know intolerable pain? Ok.

You also approve of it. Your god sends people who are 'different' to a place where they experience intolerable pain for all eternity.

What good souls Christians have.

I don't think that Jesus would have wanted people to be sent to hell. And I mean Jesus, the man, not the son of god.

quote:

A few problems with this. If god created us with free will, then he is also ultimately responsible for everything that we do with free will, bringing the spotlight right back to the supposed creater of our initial conditions.

how are we free since u put resposibility in god for our actions?

quote:

Why not step in? Why is free will so important? Frankly, the massive number of people who are suffering to an intolerable degree (and those who have and will suffer to such a degree) would quite like to swap their free will for some comfort. And besides, why isn't free will reconcilable with a universe in which pain is not present? If god is omnipotent, then he should be able to create such a universe.

again the place ur refering to is heaven. and further more u hve no idea what intolerable pain is my friend.

quote:

No, no, you see my problem is that he accepts the reward at the end without any qualms at all, not even pausing to be concerned about his previous dead family et al. He lacks realistic humanity, which would presumably respond to such inauthentic treatment with some degree of friction.

and im afraid thts the one thing ull never get. he didnt bother with concern because he knew where they were and tht he might see them again someday.

quote:

its not as if we are on the brink of death from suffering. yes people die every day but from events man has created. For ex. you dont pay attention while driving you accidentally hit something or someone causing pain or death. or a more drastic ex.People who commit murder, terrorists, people who are just angry enough to kill actually plan or want to kill someone these arent things that god has done to us its our "FREE WILL" as humans.

A few problems with this. If god created us with free will, then he is also ultimately responsible for everything that we do with free will, bringing the spotlight right back to the supposed creater of our initial conditions.

quote:

We always had free will, but by disobeying god we have an added suffering into the mix. this brings me to the fact that god is a good all powerful being but since we disobeyed him he chooses not to step in so to speak.

Why not step in? Why is free will so important? Frankly, the massive number of people who are suffering to an intolerable degree (and those who have and will suffer to such a degree) would quite like to swap their free will for some comfort. And besides, why isn't free will reconcilable with a universe in which pain is not present? If god is omnipotent, then he should be able to create such a universe.

quote:

the only thing i can think of for this is that he knew god would repay him for his service in the end.

No, no, you see my problem is that he accepts the reward at the end without any qualms at all, not even pausing to be concerned about his previous dead family et al. He lacks realistic humanity, which would presumably respond to such inauthentic treatment with some degree of friction.

quote:

If god created beings who were unable to think abstractly until eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, it raises doubts about why he created us in the first place - clearly it wasn't to reason abstractly, or indeed to think at all, because he didn't provide us with those abilities. The story of Genesis, from this perspective, is not so much a story of human beings falling through the exercise of their free will, but actually them gaining the free will that god didn't actually give them in the first place.

The thing in brackets was more of a throwaway comment than a serious argument, but now we're considering it individually, I don't see why it shouldn't be a point in the debate in its own right. I was wondering what reason an omnipotent and all loving god could have for creating an entire species simply to praise him, especially when they have to suffer for the privilege of praising him. An earthly example might clarify - if I created a race of rabbits with the intelligence of a small child and told them to love me as their creator, then I should ensure that in the process of forcing them to worship me that I take care not to let them suffer (say that, as a result of making them cleverer, the slight increase in brain size gives them lots of nosebleeds, makes breathing difficult and gives them a preponderance to manic depression). I am clearly acting unethically, since I, even if I am someone with a spectacularly large ego, cannot get very much enjoyment out of manipulating my race of intelligent bunnies, whereas they have to suffer greatly for their ability to worship. Can you see why that might be wrong?

Again the only thing we recieved from the fruit was the ability as to whats right and wrong we had the ability to think as you can reread in my quote.

its not as if we are on the brink of death from suffering. yes people die every day but from events man has created. For ex. you dont pay attention while driving you accidentally hit something or someone causing pain or death. or a more drastic ex.People who commit murder, terrorists, people who are just angry enough to kill actually plan or want to kill someone these arent things that god has done to us its our "FREE WILL" as humans.

quote:

quote:

to answer brehon God has created this world but the only way to get there is being faithful to god and youll be rewarded after death and the judgement.


This is tied into the point I was making above, with the clever bunnies. My 'huffy' questions about why god couldn't create a world in which we were both free and happy is basically the same point: a god who is all powerful and who loved humanity (even if not the rest of the animal kingdom) should have been able to create a world in which human beings have free will and in which there is no suffering (and also in which there would be no clashes between the two, ever). But god hasn't seen fit to do that. This is an argument that Epicurus put forward centuries ago, but it is still a forceful one. It reduces god to either being good willed but powerless, a powerful bastard who enjoys watching us suffer, or a powerful good willed person who just doesn't know what he's doing or doesn't recognise that we are suffering. Not good for god either way.

You could also look at eden as a place without suffering meant for us. we were free to do anything we wanted except one thing and satan tempted eve into breaking tht rule therefore the suffering. We always had free will, but by disobeying god we have an added suffering into the mix. this brings me to the fact that god is a good all powerful being but since we disobeyed him he chooses not to step in so to speak.

quote:

I know this is going to sound huffy in itself, but is this a comment on my caps lock? I only use those under extreme circumstances, so yes, I apologise, I got a bit carried away. But a lot less than some, I might add.

lol brehon i was referring to the person you were talking to.

quote:

this was in the time of the judges and still occurrs.


So you actually believe that god arbitrates his law on earth? But both you and the person who wrote the article (if you did, I apologise, but it's not in your normal style) have already countered this, with some quotations about the flourishing of the unjust, and about how they'll suffer in the end in hell. You can't have it both ways - either the unjust get their way on earth and then suffer for it, or plagues etc are visitations of divine wrath, but you can't have both because they directly contradict each other's understanding of god's purpose for the world.

i said this still occurs because over in the middle east in the holy lands war breaks out then stops then starts again. im aware that the deliverence part of the cycle ended with the reign of the judges when the people asked god for a king. People can do what they want here on earth and end up in hell in the end, but they can still repent and serve god at anytime to correct their lives before they die so everyone has an equal chance in the end.

quote:

I do have other problems with the book of Job, which is that Job is perfectly content when he gets a new wife, house and livestock, with seemingly little concern for the previous versions of all those things.

the only thing i can think of for this is that he knew god would repay him for his service in the end.

quote:

Also, a number of philosophies literally hold this to be true: existentialism, solipsism and quantum mysticism are a few of the more extreme (and therefore generally more interesting) examples.

Alas i have no idea about what any of those are.

quote:

quote:


if natures not a cause for your saying this then We ,Humans, create the events in our lives by the actions we live out. and by what we choose in situations. Everything happens for a reason even if we dont know it.


I'm afraid I don't quite get all of this, but I'll have a stab. I don't deny cause and effect, I'm saying that nature doesn't have purpose, which is different. Human beings have purpose, and to a certain extent animals that have a reasonable degree of sentience show signs of purpose, but nature of itself doesn't have a purpose - the seas weren't put here to separate various peoples (if they were, they didn't work for very long), the mountains weren't put here to hold up the sky, famines don't happen because someone stole an apple pie. They have causes, but they don't have motivations - the clouds weren't being vindictive or angry when it rained on your birthday, they simply reached a certain height and a certain temperature, which caused them to fall.

i was just adding to your statement on several of these posts due to the fact tht some of the things tht person was saying was true but a majority of it i completely disagreed with.

quote:

the only problem is tht we didnt know right from wrong til after we ate of the fruit we had abstract thinking and etc. since god allowed adam to name all the plants and animals in the garden. im not sure i follow the question though how does it hurt us to prasie him?

If god created beings who were unable to think abstractly until eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, it raises doubts about why he created us in the first place - clearly it wasn't to reason abstractly, or indeed to think at all, because he didn't provide us with those abilities. The story of Genesis, from this perspective, is not so much a story of human beings falling through the exercise of their free will, but actually them gaining the free will that god didn't actually give them in the first place.

The thing in brackets was more of a throwaway comment than a serious argument, but now we're considering it individually, I don't see why it shouldn't be a point in the debate in its own right. I was wondering what reason an omnipotent and all loving god could have for creating an entire species simply to praise him, especially when they have to suffer for the privilege of praising him. An earthly example might clarify - if I created a race of rabbits with the intelligence of a small child and told them to love me as their creator, then I should ensure that in the process of forcing them to worship me that I take care not to let them suffer (say that, as a result of making them cleverer, the slight increase in brain size gives them lots of nosebleeds, makes breathing difficult and gives them a preponderance to manic depression). I am clearly acting unethically, since I, even if I am someone with a spectacularly large ego, cannot get very much enjoyment out of manipulating my race of intelligent bunnies, whereas they have to suffer greatly for their ability to worship. Can you see why that might be wrong?

quote:

to answer brehon God has created this world but the only way to get there is being faithful to god and youll be rewarded after death and the judgement.

This is tied into the point I was making above, with the clever bunnies. My 'huffy' questions about why god couldn't create a world in which we were both free and happy is basically the same point: a god who is all powerful and who loved humanity (even if not the rest of the animal kingdom) should have been able to create a world in which human beings have free will and in which there is no suffering (and also in which there would be no clashes between the two, ever). But god hasn't seen fit to do that. This is an argument that Epicurus put forward centuries ago, but it is still a forceful one. It reduces god to either being good willed but powerless, a powerful bastard who enjoys watching us suffer, or a powerful good willed person who just doesn't know what he's doing or doesn't recognise that we are suffering. Not good for god either way.

quote:

the response isnt good at all listening to the quote alone makes me think someones huffing a lil too much.

I know this is going to sound huffy in itself, but is this a comment on my caps lock? I only use those under extreme circumstances, so yes, I apologise, I got a bit carried away. But a lot less than some, I might add.

quote:

this was in the time of the judges and still occurrs.

So you actually believe that god arbitrates his law on earth? But both you and the person who wrote the article (if you did, I apologise, but it's not in your normal style) have already countered this, with some quotations about the flourishing of the unjust, and about how they'll suffer in the end in hell. You can't have it both ways - either the unjust get their way on earth and then suffer for it, or plagues etc are visitations of divine wrath, but you can't have both because they directly contradict each other's understanding of god's purpose for the world.

quote:

god had faith in job and told satan to test him and not once did job forsake god.

This point was more targeted at the article, where the conclusion was drawn that you shouldn't blame god for your problems, and then gave the example of Job. But, as I pointed out before, Job has a perfectly good reason for blaming god, which is, in essence, that god is to blame. He is the one who basically accepted a bet to see if Job could be corrupted, even licensing the punishments that the Shatan (not the Lucifer-Satan figure, but a 'Shatan', an early Jewish angel who traditionally played the "devil's advocate" role in the heavenly host) gets to use on Job, even suggesting ways it can be made worse.

I do have other problems with the book of Job, which is that Job is perfectly content when he gets a new wife, house and livestock, with seemingly little concern for the previous versions of all those things.

quote:

we are gods children from the time we are born. By accepting christ i believe your referring to baptisim. in which we must admitt to our belief in god and that jesus is the son of god. He always cares for us even if we arent obeying him so it not like its exclsive or anything.

My point was that if suffering is gods punishment of people, then he often punishes people too much, which I then called bad parenting, and even child abuse (if you wanted to extend the metaphor that far). Some people, in fact quite a lot of people, would be better off without his "discipline" and therefore also better off without his caring, which seems much less obvious in the world.

Also, a number of philosophies literally hold this to be true: existentialism, solipsism and quantum mysticism are a few of the more extreme (and therefore generally more interesting) examples.

quote:

if natures not a cause for your saying this then We ,Humans, create the events in our lives by the actions we live out. and by what we choose in situations. Everything happens for a reason even if we dont know it.

I'm afraid I don't quite get all of this, but I'll have a stab. I don't deny cause and effect, I'm saying that nature doesn't have purpose, which is different. Human beings have purpose, and to a certain extent animals that have a reasonable degree of sentience show signs of purpose, but nature of itself doesn't have a purpose - the seas weren't put here to separate various peoples (if they were, they didn't work for very long), the mountains weren't put here to hold up the sky, famines don't happen because someone stole an apple pie. They have causes, but they don't have motivations - the clouds weren't being vindictive or angry when it rained on your birthday, they simply reached a certain height and a certain temperature, which caused them to fall.

quote:

quote:
Suffering and pain are all around us every day; it is God's message to mankind that something is wrong. Action is needed.


This isn't really good enough. A world in which there is no suffering is clearly not beyond an omnipotent god. Why can he not create a world in which we have free will and don't suffer? WHAT KIND OF OMNIPOTENCE IS THIS?

the response isnt good at all listening to the quote alone makes me think someones huffing a lil too much.

to answer brehon God has created this world but the only way to get there is being faithful to god and youll be rewarded after death and the judgement.

quote:

quote:
Had humanity heeded the regulations He gave Israel around 1600 BC, many major health problems would never have occurred. There would have been no Black Death and the spread of many infectious diseases which have caused untold suffering down the centuries, would have been minimized.


What exactly does this mean? Do these laws call for the immediate execution of rats? And besides, these laws were set down for a people who lived in the desert - many of the sanitation laws wouldn't work in more temperate countries.

i believe tht theyre referring to the cycle of faith.

obedience

prosperity

disobedience

suffering

repentance

deliverance

this was in the time of the judges and still occurrs.

quote:

quote:
Without God, man is in a "no win" situation.


As a conclusion to this paragraph, this makes no sense. For one, it doesn't offer a solution, and since god stopped interfering when Christ appeared, he isn't in a position to help now. Nor does faith in god offer any solutions to over-population except to flood the earth and wash away all the nasty excess human beings.

sadly i have to agree with brehon here this offers no answer or a good enough one to settle the minds of the masses on these questions.

quote:

quote:
When we are distressed and everything seems to be going wrong, it is easy to blame God if not for the actual problem, at least for not protecting us, or our loved one, from it.


But in Job's situation, this is a perfectly natural charge - it is god's fault that he wasn't protected. God admits as much right at the beginning of the book, when he lets the Shatan attack Job. There's the culpability right there, look

god had faith in job and told satan to test him and not once did job forsake god.

quote:

When we accept Christ, God becomes our Father caring for us and disciplining us, as is individually appropriate.

we are gods children from the time we are born. By accepting christ i believe your referring to baptisim. in which we must admitt to our belief in god and that jesus is the son of god. He always cares for us even if we arent obeying him so it not like its exclsive or anything.

quote:

it's nice to think that everything happens for a reason but it really does not.

if natures not a cause for your saying this then We ,Humans, create the events in our lives by the actions we live out. and by what we choose in situations. Everything happens for a reason even if we dont know it.

quote:

The second is that the book of Genesis' account of pain and suffering isn't really very helpful in explicating anything, let alone pain and suffering.

We dont need the bible to explain the feelings of pain and death and we know what evil and hatred are already the onlything the bible goes into further is whats after death.

quote:

quote:
Human beings were created able to reason in the abstract, to appreciate beauty and to know right from wrong. These are characteristics of God Himself. The LORD'S purpose was to create a race able to recognize His supremacy, and reverence Him as a result.


Well this is pretty poor Biblical scholarship. Human beings demonstrate no ability to tell right from wrong prior to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which means that god didn't create them with any of these abilities, and, further, questions god's intentions to create human beings to reverence him (not to mention the question of why an all-loving god would create a race of beings that can consider their own pain simply to praise him).

the only problem is tht we didnt know right from wrong til after we ate of the fruit we had abstract thinking and etc. since god allowed adam to name all the plants and animals in the garden. im not sure i follow the question though how does it hurt us to prasie him?

Sorry to start quite a long way back, but there were a few things in your longer posts that I wanted to address.

quote:

Who has not asked "Why me?... Why us? ... Why them?"

This is a category mistake; these people are looking for justifications and motivations where only reasons and causes exist.

quote:

Only the Bible provides the reason and the solution for this universal problem. Many scoff at the Bible, especially the book of Genesis, but without it the problems of evil, pain, and death remain inexplicable.

This isn't true. For one, and this is often a problem with the idea that the universe is in any way fair, is that it isn't a universal problem. The second is that the book of Genesis' account of pain and suffering isn't really very helpful in explicating anything, let alone pain and suffering.

quote:

Human beings were created able to reason in the abstract, to appreciate beauty and to know right from wrong. These are characteristics of God Himself. The LORD'S purpose was to create a race able to recognize His supremacy, and reverence Him as a result.

Well this is pretty poor Biblical scholarship. Human beings demonstrate no ability to tell right from wrong prior to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which means that god didn't create them with any of these abilities, and, further, questions god's intentions to create human beings to reverence him (not to mention the question of why an all-loving god would create a race of beings that can consider their own pain simply to praise him).

quote:

"The wages of sin is death" is the law of the Creator.

Again, what sort of all-loving god sets up this kind of rule? Testing lab rats contains more good than this notion (and I'm against animal testing, by and large, as should be apparent by now).

quote:

Suffering and pain are all around us every day; it is God's message to mankind that something is wrong. Action is needed.

This isn't really good enough. A world in which there is no suffering is clearly not beyond an omnipotent god. Why can he not create a world in which we have free will and don't suffer? WHAT KIND OF OMNIPOTENCE IS THIS?

quote:

Had humanity heeded the regulations He gave Israel around 1600 BC, many major health problems would never have occurred. There would have been no Black Death and the spread of many infectious diseases which have caused untold suffering down the centuries, would have been minimized.

What exactly does this mean? Do these laws call for the immediate execution of rats? And besides, these laws were set down for a people who lived in the desert - many of the sanitation laws wouldn't work in more temperate countries.

quote:

Without God, man is in a "no win" situation.

As a conclusion to this paragraph, this makes no sense. For one, it doesn't offer a solution, and since god stopped interfering when Christ appeared, he isn't in a position to help now. Nor does faith in god offer any solutions to over-population except to flood the earth and wash away all the nasty excess human beings.

quote:

Humanity is powerless to solve its most basic problems.

No it isn't. This is a fun game. I like statements.

quote:

The lesson is plain. There are only two alternatives for any of us - God's gift of eternal life, or oblivion.

Actually, the paragraph above this conclusion doesn't demonstrate this at all - it says that the only alternative for everyone is coming to dust, with no mention of an afterlife. Not to impressed with the logic of this piece.

quote:

When we are distressed and everything seems to be going wrong, it is easy to blame God if not for the actual problem, at least for not protecting us, or our loved one, from it.

But in Job's situation, this is a perfectly natural charge - it is god's fault that he wasn't protected. God admits as much right at the beginning of the book, when he lets the Shatan attack Job. There's the culpability right there, look!

quote:

No human has ever endured more than Jesus.

This is a ridiculous claim. Christ was crucified after being whipped and taunted. Thousands of human beings underwent the same treatment at the hands of the Romans. In China, many suffered much worse degrees of suffering. Christ's sufferings on the cross are actually not that great in comparison to people dying of cancer, or those tortured by the Japanese or Vietnamese during the wars of the twentieth century. This claim to exclusive suffering is really not very well supported.

quote:

When we accept Christ, God becomes our Father caring for us and disciplining us, as is individually appropriate.

If he constantly disciplines us, he's not a very good father. He is in fact a child abusing father, often considered the worst species of father, and railed against in all good parenting guides.

quote:

it's nice to think that everything happens for a reason but it really does not.

Actually, I disagree. Everything does happen for a reason, but not for a purpose, which is quite a different thing. When people say, "why was our village destroyed by volcanic ash?" the answer is because the people live next to a volcano which erupted, spewing volcanic ash onto their village. They are looking for a justification for this eruption, and this is where their mistake is - that is a logical fallacy. Nature isn't accountable, because it doesn't have motivations.

quote:

Im surprised tht u keep referring to humans as animals. Ur so proud and arrogant one would think tht u would detest being compared to animals especially primitive behaving filthy monkeys.

Why? I mean, we are comparable to other animals in many respects, but I think in terms of evolutionary power we come out tops in most of them. And this is because we have greater reason. Not to sound too eighteenth century, but reason represents the best of humanity, its chief characteristic and its chief achievement. It just takes a while to work through big problems. We'll get there eventually.

quote:

although i do believe tht animals cant go to an afterlife. Isnt tht what u think of human life whats soo different? r u trying to combine science with religion in some weird way? i say this because u refer to us as animals but get upset tht animals cant go to heaven.

I think you might be getting confused here: Wolfie is trying to point out the hypocrisy of allowing human beings into heaven when other animals aren't allowed. She doesn't believe that any of these things will go to heaven, because heaven doesn't exist and nor do souls. It's your religious hypocrisy (Tautology? Oxymoron? Joke?) that she's trying to prove the existence of.

EG the humans tht ur refering to specifically are childish, prideful, arrogant, racist, sexist, anger/rage-ful not some of the qualities u see in animals xcept for the last bit.

true dat.