Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='274251' dateline='1334724689']
The epicurean paradox does not make such a compareson. you do, and no I do not agree with you.

Yes it does. The Epicurean paradox says "Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

If you think your quoted passage is indeed comparing the gods of Epicurus to the Hebrew God. Your reading comprehension is probably not where it should be to have these conversations. At least to the degree where you are insisting on asserting points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

What i see is Epicurus comparing his gods to his standard of morality (which were given over to him by his gods' prophets.) None of which have anything to do with the Hebrew God.
Lest you are suggesting a gentile/Greek philosopher with no Jewish ties somehow had access to the God of Abraham, and has judged him according to the standards and morality of gods he knew.

If this is what you are saying, The next question would be why would he seek the consul of a God from a "defeated people?" Back then that was a sure sign you were worshiping a false/weak god. No paradox was needed in his culture to prove the Hebrew God false in his mind.

Because of that Epicurus would have ignored the Hebrew God completely, and focused his worship on the strong gods of the mighty Roman Empire.
As such we can know what his gods promised him and his people in exchange for loyalty and sacrifice. Which is why he came up with method to judge the gods he has paid homage to all of his life and apparently did not get what he had bargained for.

The "he" here refers to whatever entity is posing as a god such as your biblical one, God refers to a god by Epicurean standards and the question here clearly a comparison between the two based on their qualities of ability and intent. Seems like a straightforward comparison to me.

perhaps you should take some time and research this paradox before further commenting. That's if you will not take my word for it.

[TheJackel]

As God is the infinite "I am" there in lies his definition.
truthfully I can not even begin to comprehend all that that means. So i am stuck with the simple explanation. God is whoever he wants to be.

Am I your GOD? ... Truthfully, I don't think you bothered to comprehend what that means.

It is not my fault you guys do not take the time to process what is given and simply assert what you remember christianity to be about.

I've been a Christian for over 20 years.. This argument of yours is rather irrelevant in the light of what you are trying to "Install"...

you have to learn to separate Religious teachings (the works thoughts and traditions of man) from actual scriptural teaching. I have found in my time that most of you identify Christianity and the christian religion to be one in the same. Religious Christianity or pop christianity deviates from the bible in order to fill in silent spots, and to under gird popular christian doctrine. To give people the answers they want to hear rather than represent what the bible teaches.

Ever hear of Christian Atheists? .. And if you actually read the bible like I have, you would actually understand the nonsense of your position.

The Doctrine that supports the Omni Aspects of God (Including Omni benevolence) is one such doctrine. God is All Good but not to the fickle standards of man. God's goodness looks beyond your current life to your eternal life and seeks the path for you that will yield the greater good. God has no obligation to give you the good you see and want now. Therefore God is not omni benevolent as the doctrine suggests nor how those outside of the faith like EP interprets that term.

Omni-GOD is a logical fallacy and a self-refutation. It's rather pointless to even discuss.

God is All Good but not to the fickle standards of man.

It's funny when the fickle minds of men can imagine something far more grander that the concept of GOD you are pushing... Basically your entire argument is utter bullshit, and nothing more than trying to preach a carrot as an incentive to try and make people believe in a GOD. That's called snake oil sales pitch of magical promises of eternal life "if you just believe"... Talk about a mind clap trap. Worst yet, your struggling for cop-out arguments and ways to circumvent the problems of your argument.. Talk about fail!

Again which pain should God look to limit or eliminate? what we feel now or what takes place on an eternal level, and should He sacrifice one for the other?

How about your fear of mortality to which you are clearly projecting here? It seems you want to live forever so badly that you will believe in any fairy tale that will promise you this so called "eternalness". Basically, you are scared shitless of reality. And to answer your question... Why not eliminate all pain and suffering and have everythying be of pure eternal bliss? Oh maybe because you know it's BS!

. This life is not purposed in order that we may learn how to make formal wishes, trades or demands of God simply by following a given set of rules. This is the departure in which i was speak about from the EP's paradox. His gods promised a good life and did not deliver. God promises a Hard life and that we have in abundance. The paradox does not stand because it does not apply to God in relation to what happens in this life.

Sure it applies... And basically what you are doing is self-inventing excuses for a bomb maker.. And what asshole promises someone a hard life of suffering? Yeah, your rationalizations or psychotic to say the least. Go starve your child and then try to make that rationalization to the police as some sort of defense. And if you ever bothered to read the bible, you would know the said deity promises to "prosper you".. What utter bull shit.. Especially when it's a man invented personal pasted on a volcano GOD.

was born without the ability to speak or to eat solid foods, that does not mean I have to live the next 70 or 80 years equip with what I are born with.

Yet you were born Atheist. And of course you don't have to live your life being an Atheist since you could just as easily decide to worship the dust bunny on my desk as GOD. Your reply to his argument really had relevance to the fact stated.

Read it and put into practice the promises it makes. If you note a change when you follow the directions then be faithful to what you are given and you will be given more. At some point (depending on your heart and your willingness to make biblical (not religious) changes) in your life you will come face to face with God. At that point nothing anyone else has to say about the bible or christianity being just anther work of religious fiction will matter. you will know for yourself Who God is and where you stand. This will not be a easy journey, but you can take comfort in the fact you will not be given more than what you can bear.
Plus as you progress you will have more and more access to God and what He has promised to the faithful.

After reading the bible, all I have to do to meet your GOD is go watch a Volcano erupt.. The rest of your argument is just bull shit, or nothing more than expression of common philosophies that even date back before Christianity even existed. Buddhism can just as equally change peoples lives ect.. You are making pointless arguments to try and make up for your lack of ability to deposit any sort of intellectually sound argument on this subject.

but you can take comfort in the fact you will not be given more than what you can bear.

Yeah tell that to children in Sudan.. Such ignorance is utterly amazing to say the least.

He makes himself known to all who Ask, Seek and Knock as outlined in Luke 11. Why else do you think so many have worshiped so long?

Again a load of shit.. Been there done that.. Also, this is how brainwashing works.. Magically if you "choose to believe", god magically exists! But if you don't, GOD magically doesn't exist!. Funny how that bs works eh? Convince someone an idea is real by brainwashing and getting themselves to attach an emotional bond with that idea and you can pretty much make them believe it, or anything for that matter concerning it.. And to answer your question:

1. Ignorance
2. Fear of death
3. Brainwashing
4. Profit
5. Control of the masses
6. Power
7. Social conditioning and peer pressure
8. Parents do
9. Wanting to live forever
10. Fear of reality
11. Poor education

I could list more, but it would be beating a dead horse

If you learn to look from where He would have you look then clarity is offered.

Do you have GPS coordinates for us? Oh you mean look inside our hearts and minds and then magically equate them to GOD.. Yeah more brainwashing BS.

Answers from God are like those found in this thread. You have a beginning of knowledge because you continued/knocked to ask and seek till you got what you were looking for.

What utter bull shit.. You have any idea how many cults and religions make up similar mind wiping concepts and arguments? There a no answers from "GOD" in this thread.. And we would love to see you prove that argument lol. Hence that is quite a bold claim you have there sir. Care to prove it? Yeah I didn't think so.. Nothing like modern day Charlatans.

---

If you think your quoted passage is indeed comparing the gods of Epicurus to the Hebrew God. Your reading comprehension is probably not where it should be to have these conversations. At least to the degree where you are insisting on asserting points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Compare your GOD to the Pantheist GOD and you haven't got shit.. Yeah, the Pantheist GOD is literally Existence itself to which is the governor and the entirety of all that exists.. So what is your GOD without existence? Well, it's meaningless, pointless, worthless, purposeless, useless, irrelevant, and literally non-existent! And if you had any reading comprehension of the bible, or an actual understanding of the history of the religion you would know it's a mutt of many other religions and beliefs the per-existed it. And you would know the GOD in question is actually just a flipping Volcano.

None of which have anything to do with the Hebrew God.

This might help you:

Yahweh: The worshiping of a Volcano / fire GOD of War.

perhaps you should take some time and research this paradox before further commenting.

Likewise.. Apparently you can't handle it either, and seek the need to try and rationalize it all by claiming it all doesn't apply to your GOD because you feel he's righteous regardless of he does or doesn't supposedly do. Basically turning morality, love, and other concepts into something entirely meaningless concepts.

---

The epicurean paradox does not make such a compareson. you do, and no I do not agree with you.

Lets put it this way.. All loving GOD wouldn't care what you did in life... It would infinitely love you regardless.. It's called unconditional love. So you could murder a billion people and he would come to your house and hug you and tell you how much he loves what you did, and how much he loves you for it. And all the while hugging those victims and loving them for being victims. It would mean he loves violence, hate, anger, love, destruction, bigotry, compassion, empathy, the lack of empathy, and every thing you can possibly list and imagine here.

Perhaps you can list the Omni's you attach to your GOD?

[genkaus]

If you think your quoted passage is indeed comparing the gods of Epicurus to the Hebrew God. Your reading comprehension is probably not where it should be to have these conversations. At least to the degree where you are insisting on asserting points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

My understanding is much better that yours, apparently. Apart from judging his gods by their characteristics, Epicurius is also setting up standards for minimum qualification to be a god, i.e. you should atleast be able or willing to prevent evil.

Thus, Epicurius had the foresight to provide a generic criteria for classification into godhood, fully knowing that many other poser gods would want to try and take on the paradox. Your god failed the criteria, thereby making him an inferior wannabe god to the actual Epicurean gods.

What i see is Epicurus comparing his gods to his standard of morality (which were given over to him by his gods' prophets.) None of which have anything to do with the Hebrew God.

I'd agree. Morals rarely have anything to do with your Hebrew god.

Lest you are suggesting a gentile/Greek philosopher with no Jewish ties somehow had access to the God of Abraham, and has judged him according to the standards and morality of gods he knew.

No, I'm, saying that unlike the Jews who did not see the paradox coming, Epicurius expected that there would be wannabe, poser gods and in order to separate the good stock from shit, he set up an explicit standard for what can be considered a god. Your god simply failed that standard.

If this is what you are saying, The next question would be why would he seek the consul of a God from a "defeated people?" Back then that was a sure sign you were worshiping a false/weak god. No paradox was needed in his culture to prove the Hebrew God false in his mind.

Because of that Epicurus would have ignored the Hebrew God completely, and focused his worship on the strong gods of the mighty Roman Empire.
As such we can know what his gods promised him and his people in exchange for loyalty and sacrifice. Which is why he came up with method to judge the gods he has paid homage to all of his life and apparently did not get what he had bargained for.

I don't think that your Hebrew god even entered into his considerations. He didn't design the standard with your god in mind. And your god still failed.

Now, an examiner (Epicurius) has setup a standardized test for students (wannabe gods) who want to claim a certain degree (godhood). Certain students (Epicurean gods) pass the test. Another one (Hebrew god) who wants to claim the degree but fails the test. Now, comparison between the two is automatic and the one who failed is automatically judged inferior. What's so difficult about this simple concept?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

What's so difficult about this simple concept?

To you, me,and most people here the concept is not hard to grasp. However, it must be extremely hard for dogmatic believers and others who have yet to master the basics. of critical thinking.

If you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any (Greg House)

[NoMoreFaith]

two thing the first addresses the next talking point. you accuse me of insulting you simply because you do not/can not understand basic christianity.

Its hardly our fault theres too many versions of Christianity. More to the point, most Christians don't seem to understand Christianity according to you.
You do a great job of pretending you are not just one of many interpretations however. Kudos.

we can not continue unless you address how you understand biblical Christianity.

As above. Too many versions to be addressed, that is not a strong point of your faith you know. Whether you are pop christianity or biblical christianity or rice krispie christianity. We can't tell you what you believe, the burden is on you to provide clarity of what you believe.

Understand, that many of us are atheists, there is no more cause for us to read the bible, as the qu'ran, twilight novels, or any other text in order to argue the philosophical aspects of what defines a God.

This topic has gone on for a long time, much of it merely because you are separating yourself from the majority of Christian belief with "biblical christianity". Its nothing more than another sect. Don't get angry with us because your compatriot believers diluted what you believe into an incomprehensible mess.

It is not my fault you guys do not take the time to process what is given and simply assert what you remember christianity to be about.

See my first reply. We are not responsible, to understand each one of every thousands sects.

Would you agree with the following statement;

To mankind, God appears immoral, as morality has no meaning to God, only righteousness.

I make no judgments from this statement, I merely want to be sure we both agree on a concept.

without question just look at all of the arguments for a malevolent God just in this thread. Which again boils down to a simple matter of perspective.

I think we can accept you do not hold traditional views on religion. Nothing wrong with that, we would be quick to invoke the fallacy ad populum if it was argued otherwise.


I'd like to propose a compromise. In context of Epicurus, that to your own interpretation of God rather than other forms of Christianity, that the paradox is not so much resolved but can be rephrased "If he is able but not willing, then he appears malicious."

Appearance must be taken into context that without your personal interpretation of things, he does indeed appear so.

Since the debate is not whether what you believe is actually true or not, I see no problem in conceding that your personal worldview necessitates an amendment to Epicurus in your particular instance.

I recognise a lot of prior ground has been wasted on more popular views of Christianity, yet I don't think that is unreasonable as the vast majority of those we debate with hold a more popularist view on things, so I still think you are quick to anger and condescension if you are misunderstood, but that is still largely the fault that you do not clarify your differences from other forms of Christianity enough.

I still think you're a nut, but I can accept that in your particular fairytale, the paradox does not have full application in its purest form

[Drich]

[quote='genkaus' pid='274277' dateline='1334729035']
[quote]My understanding is much better that yours, apparently. Apart from judging his gods by their characteristics, Epicurius is also setting up standards for minimum qualification to be a god, i.e. you should atleast be able or willing to prevent evil. [/quote]
I've already had this discussion several times in this thread. go back and address the points that have already been made.

[quote]Thus, Epicurus had the foresight to provide a generic criteria for classification into godhood, fully knowing that many other poser gods would want to try and take on the paradox. Your god failed the criteria, thereby making him an inferior wannabe god to the actual Epicurean gods. [/quote] this point has already been made as well.
I guess someone else had the foresight to make this point before you did. If you wish to talk about it then go back and address what has already been said.

[quote]No, I'm, saying that unlike the Jews who did not see the paradox coming, Epicurus expected that there would be wannabe, poser gods and in order to separate the good stock from shit, he set up an explicit standard for what can be considered a god. Your god simply failed that standard. [/quote] oh wait, asked and answered. just like everything else you have ask.. or do you think you after 21 pages you are the first atheist to come up with your questions?



[quote]I don't think that your Hebrew god even entered into his considerations. He didn't design the standard with your god in mind. And your god still failed. [/quote]Again basic reading comprehension failure. Otherwise you would know this is exactly what I said, and you would understand how and why the contrast between "deities" and the comparison his/your comparison of them will not work.

[quote]Now, an examiner (Epicurus) has setup a standardized test for students (wannabe gods) who want to claim a certain degree (godhood). Certain students (Epicurean gods) pass the test. Another one (Hebrew god) who wants to claim the degree but fails the test. Now, comparison between the two is automatic and the one who failed is automatically judged inferior. What's so difficult about this simple concept? [/quote]
You have been proven to be a waister of my time, so you no longer have the right to ask that I personally tailor an in depth biblical responses to you. Especially when all of your questions have been asked and answered already. If you want to be apart of the conversation then go back and find what has already been discussed and address the points that have already been made.

If you show an honest effort I will consider taking you seriously again. Otherwise know I have identified you as a troll and will be treated accordingly.

---

[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='274372' dateline='1334755813']

[quote]Its hardly our fault theres too many versions of Christianity. More to the point, most Christians don't seem to understand Christianity according to you.
You do a great job of pretending you are not just one of many interpretations however. Kudos.[/quote]
Perhaps that should be the next thread.
types of Christianity.
[quote]
As above. Too many versions to be addressed, that is not a strong point of your faith you know. [/quote]
this is another good topic to discuss. Why there are so many different versions.

[quote]Whether you are pop christianity or biblical christianity or rice krispie christianity. We can't tell you what you believe, the burden is on you to provide clarity of what you believe.[/quote]Which i can not do unless the the other person is willing to yield their idea of christianity is not the only idea of it. which on this website has happened once so far.

[quote]Understand, that many of us are atheists, there is no more cause for us to read the bible, as the qu'ran, twilight novels, or any other text in order to argue the philosophical aspects of what defines a God. [/quote]That is unless you or anyone else wants to honestly test God by the standards He has given us to test Him by.

Which is the underlining lesson of this whole thread. Why judge God by any other standard other than the one He has set before us. Like you said if you were God you would not be concerned with how other interpreted your religion. May I add that God because He has gone through such great lengths, He is also not concerned with meeting anyone on their terms. especially when He has paid such a high price to offer His own. Like wise if one is to make an honest go of what has been provided then He is not willing to let anyone go or ignore them. (parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin.)

[quote]This topic has gone on for a long time, much of it merely because you are separating yourself from the majority of Christian belief with "biblical christianity". Its nothing more than another sect. Don't get angry with us because your compatriot believers diluted what you believe into an incomprehensible mess.[/quote]Which is why this topic and others needed to be readdressed.

[quote]See my first reply. We are not responsible, to understand each one of every thousands sects.[/quote]that is not what I am asking. I am asking that you simply approach what is being said with an open mind rather than challenge or quickly dismiss anything that was not apart of the sect you understood to be Christianity.

[quote]I think we can accept you do not hold traditional views on religion. [/quote]Religion no. Christianity yes. Because my views are modeled straight out of the original blue print found in the bible. The writers of the NT do not make any apologies for God and neither to I. Everything is taught from complete chapters and paragraphs. I do not use cut up verses and arrange them in a particular way to create "doctrine." I speak where the bible Speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent.

[quote]Nothing wrong with that, we would be quick to invoke the fallacy ad populum if it was argued otherwise.[/quote]

[quote]I'd like to propose a compromise. In context of Epicurus, that to your own interpretation of God rather than other forms of Christianity, that the paradox is not so much resolved but can be rephrased "If he is able but not willing, then he appears malicious."

Appearance must be taken into context that without your personal interpretation of things, he does indeed appear so. [/quote]
Agreed, and all that i ask is that "we" look past our initial perception to who God is as reveled by the bible and why He does what He does.

[quote]Since the debate is not whether what you believe is actually true or not, I see no problem in conceding that your personal worldview necessitates an amendment to Epicurus in your particular instance.

I recognize a lot of prior ground has been wasted on more popular views of Christianity, yet I don't think that is unreasonable as the vast majority of those we debate with hold a more popularist view on things, so I still think you are quick to anger and condescension if you are misunderstood, but that is still largely the fault that you do not clarify your differences from other forms of Christianity enough.[/quote]
I have admitted that I am not perfect and I know i have far to go. I did not grow up in the church and I have not been conditioned to say think or act certain way. Which is a bit of a double edged sword. In that I am not tied to the religious beliefs of my fathers but at the same time I have many other issues to sort out as well. These issues seem to come to the surface more quickly when I am bombarded with many harshly worded responses. But I am working on it. I know just a few years ago i would not have been able to come here and do this for all that I might have to say. I am making progress. (Which is all God expects of any of us)

[quote]I still think you're a nut, but I can accept that in your particular fairytale, the paradox does not have full application in its purest form [/quote]Fair enough.

[genkaus]

I've already had this discussion several times in this thread. go back and address the points that have already been made.

this point has already been made as well.
I guess someone else had the foresight to make this point before you did. If you wish to talk about it then go back and address what has already been said.

oh wait, asked and answered. just like everything else you have ask.. or do you think you after 21 pages you are the first atheist to come up with your questions?

Clearly, you still don't get those points. So they bear repeating.

Again basic reading comprehension failure. Otherwise you would know this is exactly what I said, and you would understand how and why the contrast between "deities" and the comparison his/your comparison of them will not work.

I'm not interested in your excuses of how you failed basic comprehension. It doesn't matter if the points were raised before, you clearly didn't comprehend the then. So they are being raised again.

You have been proven to be a waister of my time, so you no longer have the right to ask that I personally tailor an in depth biblical responses to you. Especially when all of your questions have been asked and answered already. If you want to be apart of the conversation then go back and find what has already been discussed and address the points that have already been made.

If you show an honest effort I will consider taking you seriously again. Otherwise know I have identified you as a troll and will be treated accordingly.

Excuses upon excuses upon excuses. If you had actually answered those points and they'd stood upon their merits rather than being shot down again, you'd have pointed them out to me. Don't pretend to have the high ground here - all you are showing is that you have such glaring flaws that independent threads of discussion converge on the same points.

You can keep stomping your foot, throwing a hissy fit and running away all you like, but I'm not going anywhere. I am a part of this conversation, whether you like it or not. I'll keep pointing out your mistakes for everyone to see.

That is unless you or anyone else wants to honestly test God by the standards He has given us to test Him by.

Which is the underlining lesson of this whole thread. Why judge God by any other standard other than the one He has set before us. Like you said if you were God you would not be concerned with how other interpreted your religion. May I add that God because He has gone through such great lengths, He is also not concerned with meeting anyone on their terms. especially when He has paid such a high price to offer His own. Like wise if one is to make an honest go of what has been provided then He is not willing to let anyone go or ignore them. (parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin.)

This is what is fundamentally dishonest about your god. He wants to set the standard of judgment for himself to make sure that he passes it. Its no different than a criminal getting to decide what the law should be or a student getting to decide what the exam should ask. Someone with any concept of justice would have demanded that he himself be judged by objectively and rationally established standards, not asked to set the terms himself.

Further, saying that he should be judged by his standards because he went to great lengths to establish them, is like saying that a thief should be allowed to go on stealing as long as he goes to great lengths to make it legal. What he did was for his own advantage. We have no obligation to give any consideration to whatever standards he established, unless he can show them to be objective, rational and fair.

[Drich]

Am I your GOD? ... Truthfully, I don't think you bothered to comprehend what that means.

Then please explain.

Ever hear of Christian Atheists? .. And if you actually read the bible like I have, you would actually understand the nonsense of your position.

Then please open and thread and explain.

Omni-GOD is a logical fallacy and a self-refutation. It's rather pointless to even discuss.

agreed

It's funny when the fickle minds of men can imagine something far more grander that the concept of GOD you are pushing... Basically your entire argument is utter bullshit, and nothing more than trying to preach a carrot as an incentive to try and make people believe in a GOD.

Show me the carrot.

That's called snake oil sales pitch of magical promises of eternal life "if you just believe"... Talk about a mind clap trap. Worst yet, your struggling for cop-out arguments and ways to circumvent the problems of your argument.. Talk about fail!

like what? What would be an example of a cop-out argument?

How about your fear of mortality to which you are clearly projecting here?

I have been at deaths door (and even stepped in once) many times in my life. I do not fear death. Judgment on the other hand, is something I did fear. Perhaps that is why i held on to my atheist views as long as I did. (If there was no God then I could not be judged. So I need to kill the idea of God. However If there was a God then He could not rightfully judge me lest he prove himself to me.) Sound familiar?

It seems you want to live forever so badly that you will believe in any fairy tale that will promise you this so called "eternalness". Basically, you are scared shitless of reality. And to answer your question... Why not eliminate all pain and suffering and have everything be of pure eternal bliss? Oh maybe because you know it's BS!

Actually the thought of eternity scares me a little more than an eternal nothingness. If nothing were to happen then it would not matter. If we live for an eternity everything matters.

Sure it applies... And basically what you are doing is self-inventing

(By the way of the bible)

excuses for a bomb maker.. And what asshole promises someone a hard life of suffering? Yeah, your rationalizations or psychotic to say the least. Go starve your child and then try to make that rationalization to the police as some sort of defense.

Actually I was the little boy who refused to eat anything besides hot dog chips and cookies and after loosing more than a few pounds the police were called and came to the house. Where they saw the food my mom made, and they saw my refusal to eat. where they promptly told me if I did not eat here and now they would take me to the hospital and have the doctors mash up my mothers dinner and pump it into my stomach every day till I did eat on my own. After a big fit and them telling my dad to carry me to their car I ate, and have been eating every since on my own.

I say all of this to reinforce the idea that you are not a child being starved, you are a stubborn one who will not eat what has been provided.

And if you ever bothered to read the bible, you would know the said deity promises to "prosper you"..

Question, in this life or the next? Plus do you have book chapter and verse to support your coming assertion?
For that matter do you have book chapter and verse to support your last one?

Yeah tell that to children in Sudan.. Such ignorance is utterly amazing to say the least.

You are not asked to carry their burden by yourself, you are only asked to make their burden lighter. If you fail to do what has been asked of you then it is not the fault of God.

Yes their burden is great when compared to all that you have, but what I have found in when people grow up in those situations they do not see life as a burden. Many people they we have reached out to can find happiness and contentment in what little they have.
For they (generally speaking) have a richness in spirit that all that you have can not provide for you. Meaning in where it counts many of them have more than you would even know to ask for.

Again a load of shit.. Been there done that..

The fact that you are "done with that" means you have not asked sought or knocked as outlined in Luke 11. For the persistent neighbor did not stop till He got what he was asking for. Did you get what you were asking and seeking after?

1. Ignorance
2. Fear of death
3. Brainwashing
4. Profit
5. Control of the masses
6. Power
7. Social conditioning and peer pressure
8. Parents do
9. Wanting to live forever
10. Fear of reality
11. Poor education

agreed, but after more than 2 millennia if a measure of people did not actually come in contact with God. the religion would die out or change to meet the coming generations demands. history records this pattern over and over again.

Do you have GPS coordinates for us?

Better I have a link:
http://www.biblegateway.com/

What utter bull shit.. You have any idea how many cults and religions make up similar mind wiping concepts and arguments? There a no answers from "GOD" in this thread.. And we would love to see you prove that argument lol. Hence that is quite a bold claim you have there sir. Care to prove it? Yeah I didn't think so.. Nothing like modern day Charlatans.

That is just It I am to do nothing but pointing the way. If you want proof then petition God yourself. all i am here to do is show you the form that tells you how to do this.

Lets put it this way.. All loving GOD wouldn't care what you did in life... It would infinitely love you regardless.. It's called unconditional love. So you could murder a billion people and he would come to your house and hug you and tell you how much he loves what you did, and how much he loves you for it. And all the while hugging those victims and loving them for being victims. It would mean he loves violence, hate, anger, love, destruction, bigotry, compassion, empathy, the lack of empathy, and every thing you can possibly list and imagine here.

I don't know what I am doing wrong here, maybe someone else can explain it in a way that you can understand. I will try one more time. The God of the bible does not claim to be Omni benevolent. God offers Agape love which is very conditional. In fact there are four words in the Greek that all get translated into the word Love. none of which (in their original form) mean unconditional love. This idea of unconditional love is a construct of religion apart from the bible. Even apart from the Koine Greek itself so it could not be apart of Christianity as it was intended.

Perhaps you can list the Omni's you attach to your GOD?

Again the omni aspects of God are not a biblical teaching, so none. My God is not limited by the omni aspects others would place on Him.

[The Grand Nudger]

So again, your god fails the test?

[genkaus]

So again, your god fails the test?

How many times does he have to take it to realize that he is just not cut out for godhood.

---

Again the omni aspects of God are not a biblical teaching, so none. My God is not limited by the omni aspects others would place on Him.

The absence of any omni aspects, which are in limit removers, would indicate that your god is very much limited.