Dan56

Well, we won't agree on where sin emanated from. God created us and we sin, so despite the virtue of "free will", your intent on holding God responsible for what we choose to do. I obviously don't see it that way. If your child became a bank robber, did you create a thief, or did you create a child who freely chose to be disobedient to you and violate the law? Evil is the direct result of sin, it didn't exist prior to sin because sin is its cause. God simply allowed choice, from which sin came and evil resulted.

I believe we're all born of sin and in sin, but we aren't born with sin. We inherit a sin nature, but we aren't sinners until we sin. How could you enter the world being guilty of doing something you haven't done? You logic is without meaning. I disagree, a righteous God cannot create something contrary to himself. God not only separated himself from sin, He won't allow it in his Kingdom. Everyone has a choice, its why I haven't murdered anyone, but no one is perfect, and no one can resist all temptation (save one). That was the lie Satan sold to Eve; "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3: 4&5). For me, Christians are followers of what Christ lived and taught. I don't deny the Crusades or the Roman Catholic Inquisition, but that's historically relevant to a church, not a Christian. Many religions operate by they're own standards while professing another.

I disagree, God did not create sin. God is not capable of sin, its in direct opposition of his will. Evil is the result of sin.. The fall of man began when we chose the knowledge of evil, we are now experiencing something we freely chose to know. You look at justice from a limited time frame. The bible teaches that no one gets away with anything; "And I saw a great white throne.. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works... And they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:11-15). Jesus is the living definition of compassion, what you call a scapegoat, I call a Savior.

Then you ought to know that God didn't create you to sin. Sin is essentially disobedience to God, and its a choice. While sin and death entered the world through one man, and we are all born in a fallen world that's conducive to our sin nature, I don't believe we have ever been absolved of choice. If that were true, God could not be righteous, because he'd be guilty of creating sin... jmo

Without disputing one point, or offering an ounce of biblical evidence, your accusation is based on absolutely nothing. Show me a bible verse that illustrates and confirms your ridiculous conclusion that Satan was a girl? Show me where a female angel appeared? Show me the verses that say Satan has not been condemned? Explain why justice delayed means its denied. If your unable to support these wild conclusions, then your correct in saying; "Lies, lies and more lies". Your banter must be directed towards the RCC, because it has absolutely no biblical support at all.

My God hasn't condemned anyone yet, except Satan himself.. God did not make anyone a sinner, that's our choice. The curse of the law is death, it was answered through Christ for all who receive him. Justice is justice, a little time is required, but I don't believe it will be denied.

You seem to be hung-up on the guilty being punished and not an innocent person, but all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and the penalty is death (Romans 6:23). So there you have it, your ideology condemns everyone. What's puzzling is that you define a God who is willing to redeem the repentant as being an immoral God. While your brand of justice provides no restitution and no redemption for anyone who makes a mistake. That just seems hopeless and doesn't appeal to me.

I think your confusing the RCC with Christianity. The origin of Christianity (Christ & apostles) did not murder anyone or promote any inquisition. To the contrary, most were brutally murdered themselves.. I'm no fan of organized religion, I simply espouse the life and teachings of Christ.

Christianity is hardly a cult, its the largest faith on earth. My morals are based in my faith, there's no separating them from what I think because it is what I think! There's no such thing as a finite offense, you can't undo what's been done.. I don't put anyone on ignore, I'm an equal opportunity offender

Our sins are committed in the flesh, and Christ died in the flesh to atone for them (the proper venue). If you enter a marriage where there's no love, that's not God's fault. "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (Ephesians 5:25)

All have sinned and transgressed the law, so no one is innocent, we are all worthy of death. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Nothing immoral about that. You see it as evil, but I see it as a God who cares (love).

Its not that morals take a back seat, its just my belief that salvation cannot be gained by our own morality... Its God's salvation, not personal salvation

Yes, I went on to define its application to Atheist Evangelist too. But my point was that the primary definition of 'evangelist' is generally associated with the Christian connotation. Atheist evangelist just sounds weird to me, as contrary as godless-Christian, both being oxymoron's in the same sense as jumbo-shrimp.

Sounds biblical... Pretty much what Christ taught.., A case of accepting the message while disavowing the messenger?

I believe Catholicism illustrates the Holy Spirit that way, but "Halo" is not biblical. While I accept that the H.S. ascended upon Christ, I don't think it was something everyone saw. The halo was added to drawings to differentiate Christ from other people.

I wholeheartedly agree with that.. And I believe its essentially what Jesus taught. The first churches met in peoples homes, they didn't waste money building fancy churches because Jesus didn't tell them to do that. Although he did teach; God first, people second.

Excellent point

Very well said, and very true.

Affirmative action

Its an oxymoron. The definition of Evangelist; "is a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith, especially by public preaching". So I guess an evangelical atheist is the opposite; a person who actively tries to convert religious people to atheism. "An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too. Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just don't talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their prerogative." "An atheist that combats religion as zealously as evangelicals thrust their religious beliefs on others." "An atheist who is so committed to his own doctrine of the non existence of God that he believes he holds to no doctrine at all and has thus been consumed by his actual philosophical dogma, cause, identity, and world view." "An individual who is actually egocentric and arrogant enough to believe that they can disprove god's existence. They harbor intense hatred and resentment for all religious organizations. But reserve most of their bile for any Christian who would dare to publicly espouse his beliefs. And so begins the crusade for justice and reason. Someone has to reach out to these ignorant believers. To open their eyes to how meaningless life really is." Quotes taken from; http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=evangelical+atheist

You wrote that I never admit to saying anything wrong. so I gave you 2 specific examples where I did. So yes, 'there I go again' proving another one of your false accusations. I also reversed your accusation and challenged you to show where you ever admitted saying something wrong.. I got zip.. Game over.

I just wrote; "Comparing the maturity level of others to schoolgirls was unnecessary".. And I just wrote in another thread; "I've been guilty of mischaracterizing others, usually by my own mistaken assumptions, rather than anything they've said". Looks like you were wrong... argument over. Now, how about putting that shoe on the other foot and listing a couple recent instances where you admitted to saying things that were wrong.

If you were paying attention, I addressed everything in detail and answered every question. Your remarks on the other hand, list no specifics, just rude comments and allegations void of substance. Here's an example of bomb throwing; "Dan your deluded about yourself. Rather egotistical I think". Your negative opinion was reference by nothing, which makes it nothing more than snide commentary geared towards attacking my character. So as previously stated, I've made my point and will move on.

" I usually try to rise above the fray, I make my point and move on, leaving the snide commentary to others" Just practicing what I preach