Dragan,

First of all, let me remind you and others who may be lurking that communicating ideas such as we are attempting to do here have to be very difficult in a non-verbal setting. Please understand also that I have to goals here. One is to communicate as effectively as possible and the second is to so do in such a fashion as to illuminate rather than heat. Please folke.. We are discussing issues that can easily inflame and it is not my intention to deliberately so do, though it may happen ayways...



>>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?

Well, this is to me a hugely interesting issue Dragan. It revolves, at the end of the day IMO , around the difference between looking at life through the lense of time and looking at life (as extremely poorly as we will end up doing I suspect) from the point of view of thew "ever-present now", or eternity. We humans see things linerally and it is deeply embedded in our psyche and thought processes. Stop some time and observe how many references to time are in daily conversations for example.

You and I 'see' or observe today or actually "right now". There's a very bright fellow by the name of Lambert Dolphin who has a web site at www.ldolphin.org. On that site is an interesting paper on the nature of time. Here's the link: http://www.ldolphin.org/time.html which I'd recommend for not-so-casual reading. <g>

Essentially, God is outside of space and time by historical definitions. Time, if you think about is, is merely a construct of the relationship of heavenly bodies; in our case our Sun and Earth. It has no meaning apart from that.

Interestingly enough, and mentioned in the article I referenced, time is pointed out often to be subjective and even has been postulated to be slowing down. If you take it that all of the known universe is constructed of atoms and that they are in turn slowing down as a direct result of the notion of atomic half lifes and so forth then it is reasonable to postulate that time itself is actualy slowing down as well.

Anyway, if your understanding of the definition of the word 'god' includes creation of the universe then He would exist outside of time or pre-exist time and matter. I think this is a reasonable position. As such all time would appear at the same ..er.. time <g> to God. That is, everything would be in the ever-present "now". Interestingly enough, in the Old Testament He reveals Himself as "I Am", not "I Was" or "I will be".

The trouble is the anthropomorphising (sp? <g>) of God.

>
>>>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 :)

Respecting your choice does. The whole point is that no one HAS to go there. Only those who refuse God's love and forgiveness. Don't you reserve for yourself the right to associate with those whom you choose? Why would anyone want to deny God that same right?


>
>>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.

No, actually it doesn't. All have no restraints whatsoever upon them either way. It's a simple matter of making what I would categorize (after looking at all the lternatives) as a very rational decision. Now, it involves this thing we call "faith" but the will to choose is the central component of that faith.

>
>>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.

Thank you! <g> Your remark actually touches on a huge huge issue and that's the current problem we have here with the whole post-modern thought process that, after passing through the very logical conclusion of reaching the hopeless despair that existentialism engenders (and many resulting suicides as death was viewed as the ultimate experience) we have now culturally reached the point where irrational mystical experiences are thought to be the next wave. This is exactly that - irrational. I will absolutely have to apologize to you about the intellectual nature of modern Christendom. Quite frankly Dragan - it stinks! The nitwits I see on television begging for money make me want to retch quite candidly and I would not want to answer to God for their horrible mis-representation of His nature. Please understand that Christianity is deeply intellectual.


>
>>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".

Seeking God's best for others at the expense of your own benefit. Interestingly, in the Christian Bible (Jewish books - our OT and NT) everywhere God demonstrates His love He points to the cross.

That's how I would want to define the concept.

>
>>>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.

*chuckle*

I guess then according to some I should just disappear. <g> I immensely enjoy rational discussions Dragan and as I mentioned I hope you will take this post in that light.

>
>>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.

Not enough Dragan and we all fall horribly short. You are absolutely correct in your assessment of the damage that missionaries have done in the past. You might find it interesting to know that this lesson has been largely learned - at least in the circles I travel in. Indigenous individuals are now trained in evangelism. The whole notion of "Americanizing" the rest of the world is loathsome to me and many like me. We celibrate the differences we have and have no desire whatsoever to change others in the way you correctly observe has happened in the past.

>
>> 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.

Well, logic in the formal sense will always fail to lift man to God's level. Why? Well, what we call logic finds is genesis in the proposition that man has the "final say" as to what is logical or not. It's axiomatic at that point that you have ruled God out of the picture and the best you can hope for is an enlarged view of man himself. Perhaps I should have used the word "reasonable" instead. In this case belief is the next 'reasonable' step after examoinign the evidence. That's a better way to make the statement. Thanks for catching it...

>
>>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.

Oh, sure.. I just figured I only needed an example rather than a comprehensive list. I don't have that much time.. <g>

>
>>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.

Well, I'll take that as the flattery it appears to be. <g> Yes.. We are smart aren't we??

*BG*


>
>> 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.

Hoo boy... How much time do we have? <g>

In the OT God revealed himself to Moses, when Moses asked Him who he should say was sending him (Moses) to Egypt to set His (God's) people free God's response was, "I am that I am."

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am" when asked a question.

Now chronologically Abraham was far before Moses so Jesus was asserting by this statement that He was God.

Now, at this point I need to strongly remind you (and perhaps lurkers) that I will not argue the statements in the Bible. I just report what they say and if anyone is interested in honestly researching this out rathewr than engaging in mindless arguing I'd suggest you go get Josh McDowell's book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". There are many many other resources if anyone is interested...


>
>>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.

Well, it's hard to communicate. This God will open your understanding to if you ask.

>
>>Does that make sense or confuse you even more? <g>
>
>Trying to follow the religious demi-logic doesn't get me too far. Just don't get me wrong; I'm not an atheist, because I don't feel any desire to prove the existence or nonexistence of any such idea. IMO, the question is irrelevant, and even if one of the sides proved their stand, it wouldn't change mine.

Understood I'm not trying to prove God's existence candidly. I'm answering what I consider some very good questions. I have no desire to be 'pushy' but I have an intense desire to explain these issues to anyone who has an interest.