>>Well, if I were Him I'd have probably done that already. <g> However, that is not the indicated future of man.
>
>If (as you say later) man has a choice, how's this future certain? Divine psychohistory?
>
>>>But then, if he's so almighty, how come he's made us like this in the first place?
>>
>>Good question. It's actually very simple if you think about it and entirely logical/reasonable.
>>
>
>>He will give you the opportunity and will respect your choice.
>
>Promise of hell does sound like showing respect :)
>
>>For example: I would want everyone here to choose God but I know that will never happen. That won't change how I treat people as God still loves everyone - even thoe who reject him and that's the standard I have chosen for myself.
>
>Still, treats them differently and reserves a place in hell for them. Not that I mind, it's just the same as if a special incontinuous differential manifold was reserved for those who don't believe in differential geometry.
>
>>My desire and what will happen are in conflict. I have chosen that pain because I see it as a better choice than all other alternatives.
>
>You sound too logical for a believer :). But, nothing to object to.

LOGIC is not the exclusive domain of non-believers, and there are no iron-clad guarantees or logical 'steps' that can lead one to believe that God does or does not exist. The Bible teaches that the "Just shall live by faith".

Stephen Hawkings pointed out something that all people who have studied Physics learn sooner or later: the Einstein metric has a 'constant', the cosmological constant, which requires a "certain admixture of faith" (his words, you have to admire his honesty) in choosing its value. In other words, if you want to believe that there is no God you set to one value, and if you want to believe in God you set it to another value. Agnostics can't make up their mind. :) There also exists in Physics and Math an unspoken assumption (belief) that because out mathematical models seem to map so consitantly to reality, in our limited range of experience, it maps to reality in all ranges. In truth, however, there are no guarantees. There are so many possible solutions to some models we apply another 'Faith' axiom, Okam's Razor, to narrow our choices. On the surface of knowledge we may be working ourselves down into a theoretical hole, preventing us from making truely astonishing leaps in technology - warp drive, for instance.

Social siences are built on psychology. Psychology is built on Biology, which is built on Chemistry, which is built on Physics, which is built on Math, the Queen of the sciences. Godel's 2nd theorem establishes that no set of mathematical sylogisms can be internally self-consistant. In other words, they can't be proven, and even in math one has to make some giant leaps of faith.

Atheists (I used to be one) see the stars, the moon, the earth and its wonders and accept certain biological theories as explainations for what they see, even though reproducible and experimental proof, to say nothing of a falsifiable hypothesis, has been lacking every since Darwin predicted in 1858 that when the geologic record was completely known it would 'prove' his theories of evolution. Except for a lot of hype accompanying the 'missing link of the month', that proof is still absent. Even two staunch Darwin supporters, Stephen J Gould and Niels Elder, broke away, admitting that the geologic record doesn't support gradualism, a fundamental requirement of Darwinis. They developed a new theory of evolution called "Punctuated Equilibrium". "Punk-eek" admits to the long periods of stasis revealed in the fossil record, but claims that evolution is hidden in the explosive evolutionary development occuring during extremely shorts periods of time, 5 to 50 thousand years. So short, in fact, that even at the root edge of the Cambrian explosion, for example, the 5 -50K year 'evolutionary layer' is too thin to reveal anything, requiring another step of faith. Now, except to join forces to battle Creationists, Darwinist and Punk-eks are in constant warfare. It's amazing to watch.


>
>>These terrorists want to force the world into Islam through these horrific acts. That's not love. That is hate as it is not others oriented.
>
>It is - they don't hate themselves. Depend on how you define "others-oriented".
>
>>>Or, alternately, why did he decide to write the history as it is?
>>
>>Another very good question and hugely rational...
>
>When I feel irational I don't post on UT.
>
>>Well, we cannot blame God for the ills of mankind. Rememner, we chose to reject Him and go our own way.
>
>How many Christians have really chosen the way you see it? I'm thinking of the countless missionaries who forced Christianity upon people of other religions (in all continents including Europe), who forced one flavor of it upon those of other flavors, priests who blessed the armies etc.


Using the word "Force" is not warranted by the facts. Most missionaries I am familar with do not take guns or bombs with them, nor do they take hostages to force non-Christians to 'convert'. You're probably refering to the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, the Inquisition, and the abuses of that period. In your or my lifetime, however, you can't name a single example where a group of people were 'Forced' to convert to Christianity.





>
>> Bad logic..
>
>IMO, you either believe or use logic. Thus, any logic applied to belief will prove to be bad logic (from the belief's standpoint) or will prove the belief illogical (as it is by definition: credo quia absurdum est). Logic needs proof, belief denies the need.

See above.


>
>>The Crusades were an abomination to God just as the radical fundamentalism we've just seen is.
>
>Agreed, except that I'd include much more in the list.
>
>>The third question you didn't ask (which is a surprise to me as you as one of the most clear headed around here)
>
>It logically follows, there was no need. I sort of expected we'd get to it.
>
>> is this: If God made man and knew he (man) would reject God and suffer the consequences how can God then be 'fair' and judge mankind for doing what he did? Well, the answer to that is pretty simple: According to Christianity God Himself took the form of a man in the form of Jesus (fully God & fully man) and took the penalty that was man's upon Himself for what man did. Now man cannot say to God that he was unfair as the penalty has been paid fr.
>
>Not so sure - avatars are expendable. I don't see how the master suffered what his emissary went through.
>
>>All men now need to do is choose to accept the payment on God's terms (remember the whole idea here is to get rid if the rebellion that cause the trouble in the first place <g>)
>
>>God paid my bill. I just need to abandon my pride and quit trying to pay it myself and accept the substutionary payment. Since I can have this for absolutely free I now cannot blame God for punishing anyone. Why? Because all of man's efforts and struggle are out of the equation. It is ALL dependent upon God's efforts, not ours. All we need to do is accept it as free. Most will not for pride's sake but since that is their choice God cannot be blamed.
>
>You lost me here.

What he is saying is that according to currently accepted Christian theology you cannot 'earn' your salvation. No amount of 'good works' will entitle you to enter into heaven. "We are justified by Faith, not by works, least any many should boast" - Paul to the Romans.