Children that God neglected

Post Reply New Topic

You're approching this all wrong. You're acting like life is a lottery run by God. It's not!

You have removed the role of human responsibility from the equation.

Had the Library at Alexandria not been destroyed, our technology today would be on Star Trek level, most likely including a cure for cancer. Who destroyed the library? God? Nope. People!

And how do you know those children's cancers were not caused by environmental harm instigated by humans and human greed (industry, corrupt government, etc)? Does God pour filth into the water system? No-- people do!

Case in point: compare hurricane fatalities between the United States and Haiti for every deadly hurricane. For the same hurricane you will find that many more people die in Haiti. Is this because God decided to kill the Haitians? No-- it's because people have created a corrupt country where people drown in poverty in Haiti, while in the U.S there is a more just distribution of wealth, and thus people in the U.S. have better infrastructure to be protected from natural disaster, while in Haiti such things are nonexistent.

Remove EVERY human factor from the equation and THEN complain to me about God.

I think you make an excellent point above and may very well be right.

Having neatly offloaded the responsibility for evil onto the human race, the question then becomes: Why is our species so given to the perpetuation of evil and suffering? Were we designed that way, or are we just too stupid/immoral/shortsighted to help ourselves? And, as always - why is this propensity seemingly encoded into our basic nature?

I am reminded of a quote from the movie The Matrix: ""There is another lifeform that's similar to the humans. A Virus."

I'm just full of cheerful thoughts tonight!

Hello,

A rather lengthy first post…

This is a very valid question to ask. It is one that has been asked since the earliest days of humanity and responded to in a meaningful way since the days of the earliest Christians. That we have lost that knowledge says more about us than about God.

Augustine and Aquinas dealt with this issue in depth in their writings. In a nutshell, here’s the conclusion those minds and many Christian and Jewish philosophers before and since have suggested:

It all goes back to the original story in the Hebrew scriptures – a story that isn’t about factual history of geological events as much as it is about the relationship God intended to have with all of creation – and the seeming loss of that dream. Humanity was created “good”, but because of our misinformed choices and rebellion, we have become distanced from that goodness which comes when we are totally in harmony with our created state. Early theologians referred to this state of dis-harmony as original sin. It’s not a superstitious thing, it’s a way to explain why even infants choose to follow their id instead of doing what loving parents - and a loving God - know is best for them.

For Christians, the story continues in that we understand that Jesus was God incarnate who gives us the opportunity to be reconciled with the God who always intended for life to be in harmony with Him (not using this in a sexist term – English doesn’t have an adequate pronoun to express the divine…).

The question must first be asked – before dealing with sin, “What is sin?”

I would assert – as would most classic theologians – that sin is not an action, not a thought, word or deed. Sin is not a verb. It is a state of being. A state in which one human or the whole of humanity is separated from God – which began at “the fall”. This is the Hebrew understanding – it is why the ancient Jews sought atonement- reconciliation with God- from a separation caused by their choice to live a life without God as the center of their being – their existence. At this point, sin can be defined as a state of being in which God is not where He designed us to have Him – at the center of our existence, at the point of focus in our lives around which everything else revolves (I’ve noticed some of you quote German theologians / philosophers – Schliermacher argued this more contemporarily at the turn of the last century, though not as adequately as the ancients, which Hegel was quick to point out. That’d be a fun debate to revive here…).

Augustine did assert that reality consists of two states – he referred to them symbolically as the City of God and the City of Man. This is not unlike Greek thought from the same period and frankly borrows heavily on earlier Greek thought. The City of God is a reality that exists with God and should have existed here – no strife, no separation from God and His absolute love and protection. We, however, because of the choice we made at some point, due to our original sin (choosing our own pride and choices over God) are separated from God and from the City of God by a chasm of our own creation. Christians tend to refer to this state as heaven, although the understanding that early Christians had is very very different from that most mainline western churches advocate while attempting to evangelize those outside their parish. It is a state we return to, when creation is finally and totally restored under the atonement of Christ.

The city of man is just the opposite – it is not true existence, but merely a shadow of the way things were intended to be. It is truly a “shadow” in that it is a dark version of what God intended. It is the imperfect existence we experience. It is filled with disease, war, despair: in brief, with sin (remember the definition above). Here, humanity is living out the consequences of this separation we have chosen. Disease – the mutation of healthy cells by whatever means – is a result of this separation. It is a distortion of God’s perfect plan for creation. One we brought about, not God. God is not doing this to us, He is allowing us to live in the reality we chose. As much as it grieves you that this is happening to children – as much as it tears me up inside, both the children I have worked with and the ones I will never know – it grieves God exponentially more. If you have some love for them and feel the way you do, imagine how much it would hurt if you had an infinite love for them – a perfect love for them.

No, these children did not choose this. Neither did their parents. God is not punishing anyone in this way in this matter. But these children were born into this City of Man, this imperfect, self-centered world where the needs of the self outweigh any needs of others.

As long as we live in this imperfect world where sin and darkness (remember, Jesus was very aware of the “dark-side” {my words} of reality – his ministry was to heal the sick, “release the oppressed” and shine the Father’s light in a world which did not know Him - the second mission statement therein is a direct attack on a spiritual force that perpetuates this system – the “serpent” or whatever it is that gains from humanity being out of harmony with itself and creation) reign, then we will be subject to the “laws” that have been established. These things are not an original part of creation – only God truly creates – but distortions of the true way our bodies are supposed to respond to the environment. That is why we experience disease and even death in our current reality.

If you were selfless towards these individuals, you would give up all you had and all you made to cancer research and devote your life to helping them and/or helping cure the disease. However, even that wouldn’t solve the greater problem – the source of the suffering. In order to do that, you would have to engage in the quest for the City of God and bring it to all of these children and to all those in the midst of suffering. That’s what Christ meant when he said, “Go make of all disciples.” It wasn’t about winning converts – it still isn’t. It’s about sharing the perfect love of your creator with those who need to know they’re loved.

Well, that was longer than I intended it to be. Perhaps it will spark some “creative” discussion. It’s ok if you choose to flame or attack the post, but I would prefer and enjoy some real discussion on the matter.

Any thoughts on my transliteration of some minds much greater than my own?

Respectfully,
DOULOS-XPISTOU



PS - a similar answer from a different and much more contemporary viewpoint, consult Rabbi Harld Kushner's writings or those of Freedman in his book "Freedman's Fables". Anything by either author is both elightening and worth reading.

Hi doulos-xpistou and welcome. I hope no one will flame you! I think you did an excellent job of explaning Christian thought on this subject. Are you a Christian theologian?

Although I follow your argument, I also disagree on one point, and still have unresolved questions. Your post implied that Judaism and Christianity agree about the nature of original sin ('sin' in the sense of being separated from god). Judaism does not have a doctrine of 'original sin' as Christianity does. The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews. Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful. Obeying the commandments - all 613 of them - is the path back to God; not faith, not being 'a good person', and of course not belief in the divinity of Jesus.

Even if I was able to accept your explanation, or the Jewish idea of salvation through works, I still would have questions and doubts, as follows:

Didn't God know that Adam (or mankind) was going to screw up and exercise free will right off the bat?

Knowing that, was it not irresponsible of God to put all of the creation under Adam's 'dominion' (by that I don't mean that the creation was given to man to use and exploit, but rather that we have responsibility for nurturing and caring for the animals and our environment)?

Are we not an intrinsically flawed creation, since the very first one of us brought the whole plan down, subjecting countless generations and individuals to lives of suffering and pain? Why weren't we beta-tested first?

I can follow the religious logic explaining the existance of evil, but I still cannot escape the horrible conclusion that at the heart of the universe there is no loving God, but cruelty.

I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on the above.

Hello Aeriel,

Forgive me if I gave the impression that Christianity and Judaism agree completely on this. They are indeed two very distinct religions at this point in history. Most of my reading in this area is second, third or fourth century when they hadn’t moved quite so far apart. Also, my reading of rabbis’ text are limited almost exclusively to Kushner, whose writings deal with grief, evil and the human condition, so I’m not the best person to ask or give guidance on Jewish thought. In all my dealings with rabbis over the years, this is not a subject we’ve ever discussed. My apologies for misrepresenting what you have very eloquently explained. Thanks for correcting me.

And thank you for the kind compliment. I am most certainly not a theologian, except in the sense that I spend a great deal of time thinking about God and our relationship as humans to the divine. In that sense, everyone on this site is a theologian.

As to your other comments, I think part of the issue we as westerners deal with is the misperception of theological terms that have made their way into pop culture. Particularly the concept of God as all-knowing, or omniscient and the concept of love.

Omniscient, for example, does not mean that God knows every single detail from start to finish about the future. God is the architect, but how often does a building go exactly the way an architect plans it? Omniscience, the way the Greeks used it means “all-knowing”, not “future-knowing”. Because God does know all-that-is, He has a better grasp of all-that-will-be than we do. Because of his eternality, what seems like an age to us is not that big a step for God to fathom. To us, that seems to make God a being that can predict the future (an example would be a person observing the life span of an ant and an ant colony – we can predict that certain things will happen within the life span of the colony or the individual ant because we know more about the ant than it does itself – not a perfect analogy, but I think it conveys the point in this instance).

If this is the case, then God does know how things can go. God, being omniscient knows every single potential of every single action. God also knows the most probable of these actions and all the others in order of probability. God is, in essence, the ultimate bookie – God knows the odds and percentages, but like a mature parent, gives guidance (in His case, through scripture and prayer) and then lets the child decide on her / his own.

Love is the other key factor here, without which this formula does not work. God is indeed our loving creator. It says that after the rest of creation was formed that God still desired a companion – someone to commune with that wasn’t a servant, as apparently the angels are. In order for this communion to not be “fake” or programmed, God apparently (remember, I wasn’t there ) created a creature within harmony with Him that had the choice of whether or not to be in such a state. That was and is us. God knew the odds that a creation with limited knowledge and total freedom might not maintain this harmony – that we might instead choose our own un-thought-out desires and impulses, but in order to have a true relationship with His creation, he took the chance, knowing full well that the odds were against it working out. Again, God loved us and desired a relationship so much he gave us the gift of free will.

I don’t know if the Genesis myth is fact or a “just-so” story. For me, it doesn’t matter – because either way it explains why we live in a state of imperfection. It isn’t something God did to us, it is a separation from God that we chose. Casting humanity from the “garden” or from harmony with creation wasn’t a punishment, it was a gift of grace. The more logical argument would have been to wipe out the humans and start again. Something scripture tells us God has considered, but has never brought Himself to do – because He does indeed love us too much to do it to us. Just as a parent from time to time wrings their hands and pulls their hair, but never (should) give up on their role as loving parent: supporter, advisor, confidant, friend, and at times even “savior” (I know my dad got me out of trouble more than once over the years…).

Someone earlier in this thread stated that we were looking at it all wrong (or something to that effect). I would suggest that person is in this instance correct. When we see God as cruel, we are looking at Him as a spoiled disobedient child looks at a corrective parent (note: this is an analogy – I am in no way suggesting you are spoiled or disobedient - not any more than any other one of us living in this imperfect state of being, anyway). Studies have shown that our image of God is initially based upon our parental units and how they handed out discipline. If we had loving, understanding and patient parents then we tend to view God that way. If we had strict, overbearing, and controlling parents, then that is the way we view the ultimate parent “in the sky”. Part of spiritual maturity is dealing with personal and family dynamics, acknowledging our parents strengths & faults (and our own if we’re parents) and understanding that God is not our parents, but the perfect model of what our parents should have been; then moving on and having a signicant relationship with this divine being who desires to be in communion with each of us on a personal level (herein then is where the ant hill model breaks down… I don’t know anyone who has personal relationships with ants ).

So, I no longer see God as a distant, firm handed dispenser of punishment. I have come to a place where I see God as a kind and loving mentor who wants me to get to know him more each day as I continue this journey he has given me (life) with Him as my guide.

I’m not sure if I addressed all of your comments – or addressed any of them adequately. Please let me know what you think. I am glad a place exists where we can discuss this. This is fun!

Sincerely,

DOULOS-XPISTOU

doulos-xpistou,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post. I want to answer fully when I have more time to ponder the points you made (I'm off to work for 8 hours); but did want to let you know I appreciate your taking time to respond so thoroughly (and politely).

I agree - it is great to have a place we can discuss this. Hopefully neither one of us will be flamed for our views!

Wrong, You're revering to the problem of evil here. It has never been solved. These 3 things can't co-exist.

1)god is omnipotent

2)god is omnibenevolent

3)evil exists

Which one do you propose is false??



This was simply early humans attempt to explain the dual natue of man. Evolutionare psycology has given us a far more rational and logical explanation for mankind's Janus-faced nature. All primate brains share a common architecture much like most PC's are built on an ATX frame. The primary concern of primates is social status. The environment of early homonids drove them to cooperative hunting/gathering which went contrary to their competiteve nature. This is the source of evil. Humans are trying to cooperate with a brain that was'nt originaly designed for it.



AS I've posted before, this is merely "good cop"/"bad cop" psycology.



A purely monotheistic invention. It only exists in peoples minds.


More "good cop"/"bad cop" psycology.



This statement is self-contradicting. It proves the lie that christ's salvation is. It's a false dichotomy

So we're to blame for god's inability to maintain order in his own creation??


Really?? I never chose this. Did you??

What you are saying here is that it's adam and eve's fault they have cancer. And god has the power to heal them, and doesn't. God must therfore, be Evil.


So god is punishing these children for the actions of others. That's evil.


This is another lie/contradiction. Everything is suppused to have it's source in god. Therefore god is the one responsible for all of this.


If god actualy existed and could help, he would, but he does'nt.



And yet you've said nothing shat has'nt been refuted before. You have no original/new arguments.

Interesting line of thought. I don't have time for a detailed reply at the moment. More to follow. This will have to do for now. I promise to reply more in-depth later.

Hello,

I am looking forward to dialoguing with you and the group, but I do have boundaries, the first of which is: I will not respond to personal attacks or snide comments. Don't hear this as derogatory - I just don't have time to respond to personal attacks. Instead, let's have valid discussions.

The one thing you said that was interesting to me was the comment you made about god not existing after you've presented this irrefutable case that he indeed does exist and is evil. I would be interested in talking more about these contradictions and where your feelings really lie. My guess is that this is also the source of your anger - but at this stage, it's just that - a guess.

Know that you haven't offended me. You seem to be a rather outspoken person on this forum and I am interested in discussing these issues with you - just not on the terms you have previously offered. I'm sure we can find a way to really discuss with each other instead of attacking.

DOULOS-XPISTOU

PS - I understand anger too. If you want to talk about it, I'm open to talking about that also.

Sickness or health is apart of Life. Some times We do not have control over the events of are health. For unforeseen events of Our health over take Us all. With good and bad is what makes up this world even for All of Us as Humanity is. It does not matter how old or young We are in the end too. As it is written in Ecclesiastes 9:11, "because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.". There is nothing that change that though We now have the technology today to help make Ourselves better from some unforeseen occurrences that befall Us today.

DOULOS, you present very intricate arguments, better than most religious people, but as Scrapheap has pointed out, they are logically flawed. This is why I was saying that philosophical arguments should not rest on religious beliefs. It is because they are different. How? In philosophy we come to the conclusion AFTER the presentation of arguments. The logical steps are connectively put together, then a conclusion is formed, thus the conclusion is always logically sound. But, in religion, the conclusion is formed BEFORE the arguments. The arguments are then attempted to be constructed in a way that fits the conclusion. This is why religious logic is always flawed.

Philosophy = arguments --------------> conclusion

Religion = conclusion ------------------> arguments

This is why I think that people should not attempt to put religious beliefs on logical footing, because thats not how they were learned. That is why I believe that religion is based on faith, and not logic. Its not a matter of proving anything when it comes to religious beliefs, and, thats why they should NOT be used to prove anything. Ask any religious child if they believe that we are all sinners, and they will answer yes. Ask them to give reasons and they will be able to name some (Adam ate the apple, its a test to get into heaven, etc.), but, ask them to give a logical argument like the one you presented and they will not be able too. The attempt at a logical justification comes after the conclusion has been formed.

When someone states a religious belief, do I agree with it? No. But, I cannot find it logically fallible. When someone attempts to put their religious beliefs on logical footing, then it is fallible. The religious person leaves himself open to attack only when he tries to logically justify his beliefs.

But, this is just my opinion, what the heck do I know?

Edit: More thoughts: This is why arguments between the philospher/scientist never get through to the religious person and vice versa. The religious person will NOT accept any arguments that do not fit his conclusion, and the philosopher/scientist will NOT accept any conclusion that does not fit the arguments. Thus, the philosopher can never convince the religious person that their argument is flawed, because the religious person will ONLY accept arguments that come into line with his conclusion. And the religious person can never convince the philosopher that his conclusion is wrong because the philospher will ONLY accept conclusions that come into line with the arguments.

I think that the most important thing that follows from this line of thought is that religious ideas are rightfully denied a seat at the table of philosophy and science WITHOUT having to discredit or deny the religious persons beliefs. We need not show the flaws in their reasoning, we just need to show that it was wrong to reason at all. Thus, since it is wrong to attach reason to these beliefs, it follows that it is wrong to use these beliefs TO reason. Although, I don´t know how effectively this argument would be, so we still need to show that religious beliefs are logically incoherent when it comes to science and philosphy.

Last edited by jonathan79 on 27 Jun 2006, 11:34 am, edited 3 times in total.

Edit: double post

Hello Jonathan79,


Thank you for the kind welcome. My only objection to your many points is that you call me religious. I think the people who know me best would spurt whiskey from their noses if I told them that! J I am most definitely not a religious type, just interested in Absolute Being and my relationship to It. As I’ve read someone post in one of these forums, religion tends to be about laws, my faith is founded on an reason, experience, faith and tradition that altogether total the relationship I have with the Divine.

Please know that the last thing I am trying to do is convince someone I am right and they are wrong. I am merely sharing thoughts and searching for others.

Which brings me to your other observations. I find them very interesting. I will have to ponder your model of philosophic and theological reasoning, but at first glance, regarding modern theological method, I would tend agree with your presentation of how the two differ. Of course starting with Aristotle, Plato and as recently as Kant and Descartes we have pure philosophers presenting valid syllogisms explaining the existence of a Divine using pure logical arguments.

The popular brand of “theology” today however is a form of apologetics, which does exactly what you state. I find apologetics to be very unappealing for this very reason. You will never convince someone there is a god that should be worshipped. This understanding comes – as you put it – from an experience that we then try to explain using logistical syllogisms. In their defense, I will point out that logistical syllogisms do work both ways (If A = D + F=B, therefore C; or C and B=D therefore A=C). So, even if I don’t care for this form of reasoning, it is valid logic – not flawed – from an academic standpoint. It is a bit – to me anyway – like speaking isogetically about a text instead of exegetically about it, which I consider to be highly subjective (I believe your point also) and oftentimes irresponsible.

A logistical model I prefer over this one that is a bit more reality based than pure theoretical logic like Descartes and Aristotle is a model known as the Philosophical Quadrilateral, presented in its current form by Whitfield in the mid 19th century.

It asserts that logic is not enough to prove truth: that reality must be proved in four ways before we can know it is indeed authentic reality (“truth”), by means of:

Reason (Logic),
Experience,
Tradition, &
Authoritative Documentation.

In other words, just because a logistical syllogism can be proven, does not prove that it is truth (ex: In college, I once created a very lengthy and extensive syllogism showing that the existence of the coffee bean proved the existence of a benevolent deity – got an A on it, but the professor was more amused than convinced).

Using the Quadrilateral, one must be able to show not only through logical argumentation, but also through existential experience, recognition from a cultural tradition and also by documented authoritative evidence that something is true before one can definitely show a correlation between theory and fact. This does not rule out logic, but makes logic merely the first step on a journey for true Being. All truth must first pass the criterion of logic, but then has three other criteria it must also meet. This concept runs parallel to the way in which “hypothesis”, “theory” and “law” perform using the terms the way that Newton uses them.

Using this model, religious thought – or more appropriately “Theology” (words about god) – much can be deemed illogical and hence removed from consideration. Conversely, seemingly logical models may be eliminated by one of the following three criteria. For example:

I may be able to prove on paper that there is a god who exists merely to provide caffiene for our stimulation, nourishment and enjoyment and that “nirvana”, “self-actualization”, “salvation”, eg, is reached through experiencing the god-given gift of ambrosia known to humanity as coffee. I could go on to extrapolate on its benefits and the traditions in many cultures that use the cocoa bean in their religious ceremonies that would to some extent deal with the Tradition and Experience parts of the equation (a bit shaky, I’ll admit), but I am fairly certain that when seeking valid authentication of my hypothesis, that I would discover that this is not what those natives perceive as happening when they drink coffee.
Therefore, my beautiful and logically proven syllogism is, alas, untrue or at the very least, unfounded.

This is not a “Christian” argument developed to prove my faith or anyone else’s. This method of thought works in every vein of life and with ever culture, religion and aspect of Being – as viewed from our western paradigm.

So please bear in mind that simply because I am not following the same didactic method to come to a conclusion that another person may be using does not mean it is not logically, philosophically or academically accurate. There are many avenues to truth – and many avenues that seem true which are not.

As far as edit: I would again agree to a point, yet suggest again - hopefully a little clearer than above - that this is indeed the difference between religion and theology. Theology is not defensive, nor does it have "sacred cows" or dogma that must be defended. That is left to those more close minded who are indeed not philosphers, but instead slogan bearers for thier particular flavor of religion. Theology is true philosphic discussion about Absolute Being.

All this said, I would be very interested in your theological thoughts. My guess is they will be very stimulating.

Sincerely,

DOULOS-XPISTOU

Scrapheap wrote: Wrong, You're revering to the problem of evil here. It has never been solved. These 3 things can't co-exist.

1)god is omnipotent

2)god is omnibenevolent

3)evil exists



Why not??

Because 2 of them together exclude the third.

Pursuant to our ongoing discussion of the problem of the coexistence of evil and a benevolent God, here's an explanation from a Jewish mystic and teacher, Rabbi Ariel bar Tzaddok. I thought it might be refreshing to have something other than Christian thought for the militant atheists among us to bash.

"...The Kabbalah teaches that in our physical realm of space-time, the forces of evil outweigh the forces of good. The natural pull of physical living often obscures our spiritual eye from seeing the invisible realm in which our entire physical universe floats like a small island barely jutting up out of the ocean.

We are surrounded by forces beyond our control yet these same forces exert their control over us in many ways like a puppet master pulls on the strings of the puppet.

The human mind and human emotions are most pliable. Those with knowledge of mental and emotional manipulation often take advantage of others; often without the others even knowing that they are being manipulated.

In Kabbalah, the forces of evil are referred to as Klipot. This is the Hebrew word for a shell or a husk. A Klipah encases that which is in it, in essence holding what is inside it prisoner. Yet, a Klipah is not a room like a jail cell. A Klipah is more like a second skin. Within a jail cell, there is room to maneuver. Within a Klipah, there is no room whatsoever.

The Klipot originated from what the Kabbalists call the "shattering of the vessels." This was an event in primordial history when G-d was creating the spiritual forces that were to become the underlying forms of all dimensions in creation.

Yet, as these "vessels" of the Divine light emanated forth from the Creator, a peculiar event occurred. The Light dispatched by the Creator to fill these vessels was too bright, and too strong for the vessel to withstand. The results were that once each of these seven vessels received the over-abundant Divine Light, they were unable to bear it, and thus they collapsed under the "heavy" weight.

The broken pieces of these vessels fell into the realms that would later become physical space-time. Yet, due to their distance from their lofty spiritual source and due to their breakage, these vessel fragments no longer embodied the holy purpose of form for which they were created. All that remained in these vessels was an echo of an idea, a glimpse of remembrance of their former glory.

This short sight of knowledge defines how evil forms. Evil comes about when there is an ignorance or denial of good. The fallen vessels lost focus of the definition of good and became by definition the architects of evil...."

By Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok
Copyright © 2003 by Ariel Bar Tzadok. All rights reserved.

If anyone is interested in reading more, you can find the complete essay at
http://www.koshertorah.com/exposing%20t ... 0evil.html

My point in posting this was to illustrate that in order to argue or debate effectively, we must begin by using the same basic frame of reference. Rabbi Ariel's Kabbalah is probably unfamiliar to most people, and thus difficult to refute except in the most basic terms, such as, "That is the biggest load of horse hockey I've ever read and I don't believe it for a minute," which really isn't legitimate debate or discussion at all.

Christianity is more familiar, and thus easier to argue against. I have observed that most Christian-bashers have a very limited understanding of the religion's basic tenets, and the premises of their arguments are things they think they know about Christian thought, rather than a result of real study and education on the subject. It is refreshing to me to read doulos-xpistou's posts, because he obviously has done such study.

I am neither a Christian or a Kabbalist, but I do agree with Herman Wouk, who wrote: "A lot of people think all you need to discuss religion is a mouth."

This is the only true statement here.

This is saying that god is an incompetent hack



And how did they "Discover" this??


And yet it's not far from the truth.



This entire post is a philosophical construct. We have now way to measure/test/verify any of it's major points.