Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[tackattack]

---

1- I'm farmiliar with universalism. Most non-denominational churches I've been to have a watered down version of universalism. Usually all of the tenants except universal reconciliation are accepted.

Why I mentioned Universalism at all was because you were constantly emphasizing this unconditional "Love of God", and I was questioning your apparent heterodoxy. I'm aware this isn't mutually exclusively from what Christianity advocates but is more so the core theological belief that a Universalist preaches regarding their concept of God.

2-Perhaps mercurial has too strong of a connotation to use effectively here.

Agreed, let's get back to addressing the God concept's attributes and supposed superior morality.

3-Time, ok.. God is outside time. His actions where they interact in this universe are then perceptable to us and therefore exist in that instant and therefore in spacetime. Is that clearer? God's love would be eternal, but our perception of that love can only exist as long as we can perceive.

This depends on how you define "time". Logically we must define this God concept before discussing its apparent emotions and intelligence any further. How is God, as an entity, physically outside space-time dimensions and yet can still interact and manifest itself in ours without being subject to the laws of physics as well? How can God do anything in a chronological order without being subject to spacetime himself?

4-If I misinterpreted your words then I apologize. You stated that I should appreciate you live in a state of seperation from God. That requires that a) you have an idea of God's existence and b) you actively choose to live seperate from that concept. To me I read that as you understand the existence of God and then actively choose to seperate yourself from that. I hold no conspiracy theories as to atheist plots and such. This was simply how I interpreted your stance and only related to you and not athesits in general. If it was wrong I think you've clarified that and it serves no purpose to continue going over it again.

I was responding to your premise, and pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument when you asserted rejecting God's love results in consequences, that ultimately lead to separation from him, which is of no consequence, since there is no God manifesting himself in our lives, or at least my life. It's as absurdly irrational as threatening people if they don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster their third eye will be starved of spiritual nourishment, and then vanish into thin air.

6-You think I deserve to be forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent second death? No, nor did I ever state that. If you don't have a second life through Christ, then I don't see him bringing you back from oblivion just to sent you back.

Again, please read your Bible before making assertions about what it preaches, its quite clear that sinners die a second death at the hands of your god concept for simply not believing in him. They haven't attacked god or harmed him, indeed by your definition, they can't do anything to god, yet this omnibenevolent deity loves us so much he destroys us utterly.

---

renumbered.
1-I define time as webster does "the point or period when something occur".
2- I would say when God ineracts with this universe, he is subject to the laws he reated in this universe. The miraculous may occur because of a lack of our understanding of the nature of this universe. I would say in the instant of his interaction he uses the established laws/axioms to instruct, guide and interact with us. For instance, when his actions interfered with this universe it would be marked at a certain time in a certain way, and thus for that instant would he be both in his nature and measurable within the confines of the universe. Just because you have power or control over a concept such as time, doesn't mean you can't use that concept.
3-Why does everyone assert that I haven't read the Bible? I'm aware of revelations take on hell, which isn't supported by the other books, but we'll say I completely agree wih it 100%.
a)It says the second death is absolute oblivion though destruction in a lake of eternal fire. The torment is not eternal, the fire is. At loosest it's a metaphor for God's hatred of sin. The rest of the Bible's book that speak of the second death aren't focused on the lake, and are much more explicative as to even say oblivion. That's non-existence, not a forever amount of torture.
b) Again the point I'm making is in the immediate aftermath of death the Bible is ambiguous as to when and where you go, just that eventually a judgement day will come where you are either in the book or not and could be made to die a second time.