Do they really believe?

[phelix22]

My apologies on Ramsey he published that in 1915.  I do believe i stated I had to trust other sources and have quoted them.  I didn't put any of Josh's comments in there.  I did use his bibliography though.  Any commentary thought would be mine.

[Omen]

You completely missed the point

No, he completely understood.  His response to you was to use the same pleading qualification you made, in the form of a spurious argument from authority, to in effect mock your own statements.

It is unfortunate that the exercise is completely lost upon you, just as it seems to be lost upon you to answer the most simple question:

When was the last time you left a loaded gun next to your daughter to teach her that life has consequences?

[phelix22]

It is unfortunate that the exercise is completely lost upon you, just as it seems to be lost upon you to answer the most simple question:

When was the last time you left a loaded gun next to your daughter to teach her that life has consequences?

that may be your parenting practice.  But I would never leave a loaded gun anywhere in my house.  but since I am to draw the conclusions for everyone.  I assume the loaded gun is the forbidden fruit.  or is the loaded gun any sin?  how does the loaded gun fit into the conversation?

[phelix22]

Let me just say one thing to qualify all the statements I make.  I do not have contempt for any of you nor do I find contempt helpful in debating or in conversation.  It seems everytime I read a comment there is a burning desire to humiliate or talk down in a condescending way.  Is it ok to leave that out until I have offended you personally.  Just a thought.

[Omen]

When was the last time you left a loaded gun next to your daughter to teach her that life has consequences?

But I would never leave a loaded gun anywhere in my house.

Why would you not leave a loaded gun in reach of your child?

[Dante]

Phelix,

I would appreciate a response to post #114 when you get a chance.

Thanks!

[Omen]

Let me just say one thing to qualify all the statements I make.  I do not have contempt for any of you nor do I find contempt helpful in debating or in conversation.  It seems everytime I read a comment there is a burning desire to humiliate or talk down in a condescending way.  Is it ok to leave that out until I have offended you personally.  Just a thought.

Sometimes ignorance is often interpreted as malice or the intent to be deceptive on purposeful, but I'm fond of the saying:

Never blame on malice what can be explained by incompetence.

In this case, Historicity used a very simple rhetorical device in order to elaborate the vacuity of the statements or line of reasoning you were trying to draw your conclusions from or about.  Yet, you don't even see fit to respond to that and only seem to want to distance your own reasoning from what you seem to realize is at odds with what is considered reasonable.

There is also the fact that you're simply repeating one apologetic rationalization after another, often outside the scope of logically defending those subjects to their inevitable irrational and illogical conclusions ( or even starting presumptions/premises ).  I'll be the first to admit that I have nothing but contempt for what is by definition not an effort in intellectual depth or a valid attempt to meaningfully explain anything, but is instead a constant game of rhetoric devoted to a presuppositional position that there always remains a valid lack of an argument for in the first place.

[velkyn]

My apologies on Ramsey he published that in 1915.  I do believe i stated I had to trust other sources and have quoted them.  I didn't put any of Josh's comments in there.  I did use his bibliography though.  Any commentary thought would be mine.

Yep, you quote them just like McDowell.  Oh well, I suppose if all you have are long outdated books, those will be quoted again and again by every wannabe apologist.  You can't find anything recent that supports you so you are stuck.  

Considering that archaeology in the middle east has gone on much longer than someone who saw it in 1915, and that they lost the need to try to prove their ridiculous religion, we have much better work now.  You claim to trust these sources, but the only reason it appears that you do is that they agree with you.  Let's look at this quote you used:

William F. Allbright,  Recent Discoveries in Bible lands (New York) 1955 "we can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about ad 80, two full generations before the date 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of Today.

  But we have scads of people claiming otherwise: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating-Revelation.htm  http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm  

and I haven't found any biblical teaching to be like that of flying snakes and the furiousness of the fetal lions.

talking snakes, talking donkeys, the romans not minding when thousands of people supposedly gathered for a new "messiah", a massacre that no one noticed, the death of all first borns in Egypt that would have other kingdoms slavering on all of the chaos that would have caused, magical healings with spit, the raising of the dead, etc, etc.

[phelix22]

Why would you not leave a loaded gun in reach of your child?

 Because of the potential for an accident.  I don't want them in harms way.  Thats the human way right.  Protect them from danger.  But at the same time,  if I see them walking toward an obstacle and I just told them to watch where they are going, I will let them trip and fall.  I count the cost, and if it is worth it, I let them discover for themselves that there are consequences for disobedience.  In either case whether I remove the danger, or am not there when danger presents itself.  The absolute truth is that there are consequences.  The good thing is that I love my children and no matter what they do, I will always love them.  But that will not change the fact that I will discipline them too.

[phelix22]

and I haven't found any biblical teaching to be like that of flying snakes and the furiousness of the fetal lions.

Let me explain.  The bible doesn't teach to kill your first born girl, or to legalize abortion or to take on many wives and concubines.  It doesn't teach to destroy anyone who gets in your way, or that the person with the most toys wins.  It teaches to love your neighbor, to go the extra mile, to give them your shirt if they ask for your coat.  It teaches to forgive and reconcile.  It teaches that there are consequences to sin and that governments should be fair.  It teaches that we should be honest and hardworking.  To someone who thinks that God is a joke, I can see how the stories can be far fetched, but what does it teach?  It teaches goodness.

[Operator_011]

It seems everytime I read a comment there is a burning desire to humiliate or talk down in a condescending way.  Is it ok to leave that out until I have offended you personally.

It helps if you understand that arguments are ridiculed on a daily basis here. That doesn't mean that all the members have contempt for you, the person.


Eleven.

[Omen]

Why would you not leave a loaded gun in reach of your child?

 Because of the potential for an accident.  I don't want them in harms way.

Did removing the loaded gun from the presence of your child prevent your childs free will?

Who's fault would it be if your child blew his/her arm off or worse?

But at the same time,  if I see them walking toward an obstacle and I just told them to watch where they are going, I will let them trip and fall.

Which doesn't begin to describe the biblical idea of the fall, even if taken to extreme lengths of metaphor.  In effect, you're using an egregious level of hyperbole to re-interpret a story of myth that is at face value so at odds with any idea of socially accepted ethics that you have to reduce, redefine, and completely change it so that it is no longer an applicable analogy.

You sir would be responsible if you left the loaded gun next to the child; not because of free will, not because the child did or did not harm themselves, but because you knowingly created a situation in that a child would inevitably hurt themselves.  A situated that in your superior knowledge could have been easily avoided.

Why would the child hurt themselves? Because the child doesn't know any better, regardless of anything you tell them outright, an assertion based on a complete absence of facts is meaningless.

Now let's take it to the next level, assuming the child does blow his/her arm off and we want to directly incorporate biblical metaphor into a correct analogy, it would now require us to somehow punish not only the child for blowing his/her own arm off but the descendants of said child for the same senseless, careless, and irresponsible lack of action of an agent that had the ability/knowledge to prevent it.  However, since for some bizarre reason we want to be able to describe ourselves as merciful in a situation that could only be described as narcissistic, we will insist that the child can be forgiven by loving/believing/worshiping the agent that allowed the situation to exist in the first place.

So introduce the idiotic apologetic pleading:

Free Will;

Yet, did we take the childs free will away by removing the loaded gun from her immediate surroundings?

Can you honestly answer this?

[Omen]

and I haven't found any biblical teaching to be like that of flying snakes and the furiousness of the fetal lions.

Let me explain. 

The following paragraph:

The bible doesn't teach to kill your first born girl, or to legalize abortion or to take on many wives and concubines.  It doesn't teach to destroy anyone who gets in your way, or that the person with the most toys wins.  It teaches to love your neighbor, to go the extra mile, to give them your shirt if they ask for your coat.  It teaches to forgive and reconcile.  It teaches that there are consequences to sin and that governments should be fair.  It teaches that we should be honest and hardworking.  To someone who thinks that God is a joke, I can see how the stories can be far fetched, but what does it teach?  It teaches goodness.

Doesn't constitute an intellectual explanation of anything; it is an assertion not supported by facts, methodology, references, or further critical analysis.  In fact, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to explain at all and instead you are simply listing things you accept as premises without anything more then an argument from an authority position that you do not possess.

[phelix22]

So introduce the idiotic apologetic pleading:

Free Will;

Yet, did we take the childs free will away by removing the loaded gun from her immediate surroundings?

Can you honestly answer this?

i'll will in two posts.  First the above statement.  You brought up the gun not me, so don't hate the metaphor.  Secondly, all analogies breakdown, as does this one.  thirdly, is it illegal to leave a loaded gun beside your bed at night, if you are married with no children and your wife right beside you?  No.  If she wakes up and kills herself, i would not be held responsible for leaving the gun on the night stand.  Why?  She is a grown adult who can decide for herself.  That is what we are.  Grown adults who can decide for ourselves.  The analogy was supposed to illustrate that God loves and disciplines and that we see the same pattern in parenting.

[phelix22]

Did removing the loaded gun from the presence of your child prevent your childs free will?

no it removed the danger.  they can still have the freedom to do what they choose and are able to do.

Who's fault would it be if your child blew his/her arm off or worse?

Depending on their cognition of course, a baby... mine.  an 18 yr old...theirs

But at the same time,  if I see them walking toward an obstacle and I just told them to watch where they are going, I will let them trip and fall.

Which doesn't begin to describe the biblical idea of the fall, even if taken to extreme lengths of metaphor.  In effect, you're using an egregious level of hyperbole to re-interpret a story of myth that is at face value so at odds with any idea of socially accepted ethics that you have to reduce, redefine, and completely change it so that it is no longer an applicable analogy.

Nor was it meant to.  I wasn't trying to re-interpret a story.  I was in effect explaining how I can be loving and let my child fail, or fall.

You sir would be responsible if you left the loaded gun next to the child; not because of free will, not because the child did or did not harm themselves, but because you knowingly created a situation in that a child would inevitably hurt themselves.  A situated that in your superior knowledge could have been easily avoided.

this has 2 major assumptions, 1 that the child would inevitably hurt themselves.  Not every child who plays with a loaded gun accidentlally injures themself or others. 2 the situation could have been easily avoided.  There are parents who hide guns well, who lock doors, who strenously avoid those situation who have lost their children to accidental gun play.

[cheezisgoooood]

Did God create Adam and Eve with the knowledge of right and wrong already installed, or was that a firmware update after they ate the apple?

Should we regard Adam and Eve as having the same intellect as a grown adult, or were they lacking knowledge of a few things as the Bible seems to suggest?

Also, God knows everything, including everything that will ever happen.  How is the idea that He put the tree, AND the talking snake both in the garden, allowing the events to proceed as they did without intervention until after it happened, consistent with the idea that he is a loving God?  It seems as though he was just looking for something evil to do.

[Omen]

So introduce the idiotic apologetic pleading:

Free Will;

Yet, did we take the childs free will away by removing the loaded gun from her immediate surroundings?

Can you honestly answer this?

i'll will in two posts.  First the above statement.  You brought up the gun not me, so don't hate the metaphor.

So you're making the admission that you're attempt at describing in analogy biblical metaphor is well outside the bounds of how it is actually presented and you're are not only incapable of addressing it directly when its presented as it is described.. but also unwilling?

See Phelix, you don't get to dictate what arbitrary line of rationalization is going to be addressed outside the actual subject material you're trying to draw it from.  In effect, we don't have to care and you don't present any valid case as to why your analogy is correct to the biblical story of the fall.  I used one analogy, literally depicting the biblical story of the fall, to elaborate how your own analogy not only doesn't match the biblical story of the fall but grossly reinterprets ideas into completely new meanings.

You also did not answer the first question; the first question pertains to how you're using the rationalization of 'free will' as some how a meaningful answer to the problems inherent in the biblical story of the fall, sin, etc.  You're still wrapped up in the apologetic script, rather than how that answer is even applicable to any of the problems.  You KNOW that removing the loaded gun from the reach of the little girl DOES NOT remove that girls free will, so I'm now calling you out as PURPOSEFULLY avoiding answering the question because of this fact.

 Secondly, all analogies breakdown,

Hyperbole, analogies only break down when they are shown to be logically inapplicable to the situation they are being drawn from.  Argue that my analogy is incorrect and explain how.

thirdly, is it illegal to leave a loaded gun beside your bed at night, if you are married with no children and your wife right beside you?  No.  If she wakes up and kills herself, i would not be held responsible for leaving the gun on the night stand.  Why?  She is a grown adult who can decide for herself.

Incorrect; you're missing the hidden problem that you're failing to address because you won't continue to answer my questions.  You are not held responsible because it is reasonable to assume the woman not only is an adult, but because she is an adult she is assumed to have the foresight and knowledge of the dangers of the loaded weapon.  Who would be responsible if you left your loaded gun next to your grown uncle who has a mental deficiency?  Would it be your uncle who doesn't have the knowledge or mental capacity to judge the danger, or you?  Is it because they are adults, or because they have the capacity AND knowledge to know better?

This also doesn't answer the original problem of the vacuity of trying to rationalize with the biblical apologetic of 'free will'.  Does your wife not have free will if the loaded gun is not present?

Yes or No?

Does your child not have free will if teh loaded gun is not present?

Yes or No?

That is what we are.  Grown adults who can decide for ourselves.

It is obviously not because we are adults, its because being adults we are expected to have the foresight and knowledge to behave differently.  Which, knowledge in and of itself doesn't remove our capacity for free will.

This also doesn't describe the biblical story of the fall, because in the biblical story of the fall the tree isn't the tree of oranges, baseballs fruitcake, staplers, or tangerines.  It's the tree of knowledge.

 The analogy was supposed to illustrate that God loves and disciplines and that we see the same pattern in parenting.

Your analogy is false, at face value.  Your rationalization of 'free will' is inescapably incoherent at face value.  Your refusal to answer the question is apparent.

[Omen]

You sir would be responsible if you left the loaded gun next to the child; not because of free will, not because the child did or did not harm themselves, but because you knowingly created a situation in that a child would inevitably hurt themselves.  A situated that in your superior knowledge could have been easily avoided.

this has 2 major assumptions, 1 that the child would inevitably hurt themselves.  Not every child who plays with a loaded gun accidentlally injures themself or others.

A complete red herring, a total obfuscation of the subject material that isn't even applicable to the argument.  I even pointed out that it doesn't matter if the child hurts themselves or not, you placed the child in the situation of potential danger.  Effectively you're first line of reasoning, albeit a total dodge of the point, is to gamble on the safety of others based on your own irresponsible actions.. to somehow make some kind of coherent counter argument?

2 the situation could have been easily avoided.  There are parents who hide guns well, who lock doors, who strenously avoid those situation who have lost their children to accidental gun play.

That's the point!

The biblical myth of the fall is as easily avoided by a being capable of infinite wisdom and ability.  Just like the parent who ( as I clearly stated ) HAS THE SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE AND CAPABILITY TO AVOID THE SITUATION.  It has nothing to do with teaching anything, with free will, or anything that is a justifiable application of reasoning to the story.  Its a silly and exaggerated bit of mythology, desperately at odds with any valid explanation beyond a twisted series of grossly intellectually dishonest reinterpretations.

[phelix22]

Omen you do well at using intertwined and highly educated vocabulary with complex sentences.  It is no wonder my answers seem to miss the mark and seem like they are dodging.  I am not trying to i assure you. 

The fall could not just as easily been avoided by an all knowing being and here is why.  No analogies needed.  (which my original analogy had nothing to do with the fall) 
If God removes the tree, he removes mans opportunity to choose right from wrong.  And God was not acting careless (like a father leaving a loaded gun with a child) because He had given them the instructions do not eat of the fruit of the tree or you will surely die.  (ie the argument with the serpant).  Secondly, they were not destined to eat the fruit, he didn't force them to eat the fruit and then punish them, they chose, (in fact, the book of Genesis says, she saw that it looked good and was pleasing and so she took it and ate it).  Why would God be blamed for that.  That God would create a women?  That God would create a possibility to disobey?  That we would have the capacity to rebel against His rules?  Where is the problem?

[phelix22]

See Phelix, you don't get to dictate what arbitrary line of rationalization is going to be addressed outside the actual subject material you're trying to draw it from.  In effect, we don't have to care and you don't present any valid case as to why your analogy is correct to the biblical story of the fall.  I used one analogy, literally depicting the biblical story of the fall, to elaborate how your own analogy not only doesn't match the biblical story of the fall but grossly reinterprets ideas into completely new meanings.

my analogy never had anything to do with the fall in the first place.  I never said it did, did I?

You also did not answer the first question; the first question pertains to how you're using the rationalization of 'free will' as some how a meaningful answer to the problems inherent in the biblical story of the fall, sin, etc.  You're still wrapped up in the apologetic script, rather than how that answer is even applicable to any of the problems.  You KNOW that removing the loaded gun from the reach of the little girl DOES NOT remove that girls free will, so I'm now calling you out as PURPOSEFULLY avoiding answering the question because of this fact.

If you want me to argue the analogy of a man and a gun and a girl I can try but my point is that you brought that analogy into the story not me, so why would I try and explain it.  Or make it fit my argument.? hello.

you're missing the hidden problem that you're failing to address because you won't continue to answer my questions.  

and here is the problem with your position.  1 I am , which means I am doing I am trying 2 hidden problems.  maybe thats why i am failing to address them.  3 "because i won't answer your questions"  which doesn't make sense by my continual efforts to try and answer your questions.

[Omen]

The fall could not just as easily been avoided by an all knowing being and here is why.  No analogies needed.  (which my original analogy had nothing to do with the fall) 
If God removes the tree, he removes mans opportunity to choose right from wrong.

Choice without knowledge is meaningless, plus again this has nothing to do with having the opportunity to choose anything.  You're trying to make the analogy of a parent disciplining a child, using low key and mild situations like running on gravel or jumping on the bed; hence the child falls or bumps into the wall and hurts themselves.  However, we are talking about the equivalent of a child, in a place where the comparison is to a tree that possesses the very knowledge to even know what choice is right from wrong.

What good is a choice if I can't tell the difference between right and wrong?

  And God was not acting careless (like a father leaving a loaded gun with a child) because He had given them the instructions do not eat of the fruit of the tree or you will surely die.

And you could tell your daughter not to touch the gun, because they might hurt themselves.  Yet in their innocence and carelessness they do so anyway, because they are less capable and knowledgeable then yourself.  You would still be placed in jail as certainly and surely as it would be 'gods' responsibility for creating a situation where someone lacks the knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

Again, the tree of KNOWLEDGE ( of good and evil, note: christians add good and evil, more so then hebrew interpretations of the first book of the torah, there seems to be a concentration on 'good' and 'evil' despite it not having the same connotation in jewish interpretation ), what good is a CHOICE if I do not have the KNOWLEDGE to know which is right or wrong?

Plus, you just engaged in an arbitrary rationalization to force biblical myth into a presumption of a conclusion you want to draw.  That is, you made up the rationalization to say god wasn't being careless.

  (ie the argument with the serpant).  Secondly, they were not destined to eat the fruit,

An omnipotent and omniscient being removes any chance of their actions not being completely and inescapably destined to occur.  The incoherence of 'free will' introduces a qualification, at least in the christian idea of 'free will', that is wholely incompatible logically speaking with the attributes associated with the biblical 'god'.  There is no chance or option for them not to choose another path, as it will occur inevitably.

Plus, 'free will' as its being described in the christian apologetic is a bizarre 'black box' that is virtually inseparable from another 'black box' that generates choices based on random chance.  To simply illustrate, imagine two black boxes, one A and one B.  One box has the agent of 'free will' in it while the other box contains an agent of pure random chance.  Now, allow options to be selected from each of the agents in the black boxes, please describe which one is random and which one is free will?

he didn't force them to eat the fruit and then punish them, they chose,

Irrelevant, even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt that free will could exist under an omnipotent and omniscient being, their choice is meaningless since they lacked the knowledge and foresight to even reasonably make choices at all.  They would simply be as mindlessly motivated by the temptations inherent in their natural design, ie if they make the wrong choice then they make the wrong choice as they were perfectly made to do so.

(in fact, the book of Genesis says, she saw that it looked good and was pleasing and so she took it and ate it).  Why would God be blamed for that.

Because god represents an agent of infinite ability and knowledge.  God knows what will happen, what could be done to prevent it, how to design it so that it isn't even necessary, and could simply create the 'end goal' situation that god is supposedly going to anyway.

ie The god of biblical myth could perfectly make perfect free will, complete with the perfect knowledge to know which option to choose or not to choose.

  That God would create a women?  That God would create a possibility to disobey?  That we would have the capacity to rebel against His rules?  Where is the problem?

That you even think that is somehow an intellectually valid answer, on top of the grossly negligent and out right dishonest attempt to distance the obvious analogy of the unknowledgeable child being given access to the loaded weapon.  Not to mention the stupidity of furthering the myth farther in that all the descendants of the child who harms themselves, is equally punished for a choice they had no part in in the first place.

[Alzael]

I couldn't make this stuff up if I had to.  Also,  there is nothing made up in what happened in my life.  What you call mythology is actually called discipleship, being a disciple or follower of the teachings of Jesus.  I don't know how many literary scholars we have in here, I know there are many who can make a quick quote to a skeptic, and a quick note to watch some educated man state criticism of the bible and its credibility.  the thing is you really have to get way out there to find those who believe there is no man named Jesus, no Jew who lived around 4bc to 29ad, who had a following of 12 men and a few hundred disciples and who's believers have persisted to follow some 2000 years later.  What is impossible to believe is that it is based on total fiction.  Every faith that has stood the test of time has dealt with scrutiny, they are either proven bogus and snuffed out, or there is an element of truth that helps them sustain credibility.  Was there a Man named Muhammed?  Was there a real Jesus?  Was there a real Joseph Smith?  Can one find enlightenment through meditation?  I understand there is an element of spirituality that people make up, they want to believe, they need an answer, even scientists tap into this idea of there is more knowledge out there than what we know and we must discover it.  But to say, you made all that up in your own mind is just absurd.  And since we are in an arena that demands proof, what have you to your claim that it is made up?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it's real since yours is the positive claim. You have to prove that he is real, which I notice you didn't bother to do in all of this. Just a lot of mindless christian rhetoric. You hardly have to get that far out there to find people who doubt Jesus's existence because there is no eidence that shows that he did. Christianity stood the test of time by killing anyone who disagreed with itself and whoring itself out to the men in power that have ruled over the century. Unless you can provide any proof that Jesus is real ,which you can't, then anything you believe or think about him is just in your own mind.
If you want something to think about however that shows that your claims are made up, I point to the simple obvious inconsistancy of the religious claims. Every religious person has a different view of their god and what he wants. They each interpret their respective books differently, they all have different books that they follow. Their god always has the exact same opinions that they hold. He likes the same things, and hates the same things. Even within books like the bible there are huge tracts of inconsistancy. The various books of the bible themselves match the thoughts and times of the peoples and authors that wrote them. There is no consistancy at all within your archaic system of beliefs, there is no proof to be had and no evidence.

Because of Justice.  What is just.  for a criminal to go unpunished?  No.  One must pay the price for one's actions.  In society we base it on what we think is fair.  "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"  but that is for the action.  What is the consequence for rejecting God?  That would be Hell, according to the scriptures.  What is just is that anyone who chooses to say, there is no God or I don't want your forgiveness, I can do it on my own, I am smarter than you, I am independant and in no need of a savior.  Then that person has made themselves to be the supreme authority in there life.  In essence they have become their own god.  And the penalty is eternal hell, according to the scriptures.  What frustrates me is that we (humans) don't agree with sin.  We blame God for the opportunity, we blame God for our weakness, and we blame God for our judgement.  That just doesn't make sense.

No you don't make sense. That whole line of thought is just stupid. No one is saying that criminals should go unpunished. However eternal punishment for finite crimes is not justice by any definition of the word. As for being sent to hell for not doing the monkey dance, this shows what a loathsome character your god is. To punish people because they don't believe in him shows his own arrogance and his own unworthiness to be our god. God chooses not to show himself or speak to us. He provides evidence that only confuses the most stupid, or the most gullible of us, and then punishes us for not doing what he wants.

[Alzael]

Phelix, before we continue this how about you actually even justify the existence of 'free will', or at least your definition of it. Feel free to use the bible to do it if you want, since you don't seem to like using legitimate science.  Once I get back home from work I can actually give your meanderings my full attention and I'm sure I'll find it very interesting, if not vastly entertaining to watch you do the monkey dance for our amusement.

[jsmacks]

I think only a small percentage adults from like the ages (20-60) are 100% "true believers" or what I would call people with "blind faith".  What I think the majority of people are though are pack followers.  They know that it is in their best interest to play along and many of them believe that it would be best for their kids to have faith in God because if anything ever happened to their kids they would not want their kids to suffer eternal torture.  Most people who are Christians have enough common sense to know that God will not strike them down with a lightning bolt for lying and would also know if a preacher is really trying to scam them.  I think though (I could be wrong though) that as people become senior citizens they get more religious because they know they are getting close to the end of their lives and they better try to get some faith.

I think most kids though are religious (from like 6-12).  I know when I was a small child we went to church regularly until I was 5 or 6.  From that point on we went to church only on Easter.  But once I got about 8 we even stopped going to church.  Did my parents lose faith?  Probably but it was never a question I could ever get the nerve to ask my parents.  My mother hardly ever bring up the subject but if someone asks her a question about religion, she will say she is a Christian.  I think my father is more religious, although he don't go to church, he listens to Sunday TV sermons at times, and speaks of talking with God at times and says things like God has blessed you.  So as a result, as a kid I definitely believed in God, sure I had my questions, but I knew not to question God and that you had to play by his rules.  Once I got maybe 9 or 10 I started questioning the belief of God some but my faith came back even stronger when I went to a Church camp at around 12.  The Church camp was a Baptist camp, where my family was Lutheran.  I always felt the Lutheran churches were more Traditional and seemed more focused on the Tradition of religion than the religion itself.  I never really felt scared into believing God at the Lutheran Church.  There was also less shouting out loud and stuff.  In the Church camp people were shouting and saying all types of stuff I couldn't understand at all.  I remember one Sunday where one of the Camp people started talking about Tongues.  I heard of it before in Bible stories books but I thought people only said it back in the Biblical times.  I asked a question about it and the speaker started saying that anyone can become the channel of God if they are open to him.  And about a minute later one of the mothers (who was a perfectly normal person the few days beforehand) started speaking in Tongues, I remember a few minutes afterwards, me and all of the other kids were crying.  At that point my faith was very strong.  I started reading the bible more and reading other religious books on how to get closer to God (although I didn't go to church regularly).  I guess though as time progressed my faith died down.  I guess as a teenager I was still religious but I was more at a sense that God could be anything and not necessarily the Christian God.  It was more of a Gradual process.  From about 14-17 I would have told you I was a Christian (although I heavily questioned the Christian God).  From about 18 - 22 I would have told you, I don't really know God could be different things for different people.  After that I became an Agnostic who leans somewhat more on the Athiest side.

I guess over time I saw too many contradictions and stuff that just didn't seem to make sense in the Christian religion. 

[WhiteLight]

"The Fall" was allowed to occur by YHWH because "Lucifer/Satan" had to be the author of "Adam and Eve's" disobedience.  Had "Adam and Eve" been the authors' of their own disobedience, there would have been no terms for reconciliation.  The difference for mankind is temporary separation versus destruction.

"Adam and Eve" had the knowledge of right and wrong and an understanding of obedience, to the degree of their maturity at that time (as we all do).
The "fruit" gave them the knowledge of good and evil -- there is a difference -- wrong does not equal evil.  Scriptural "sin" is akin to wrong, but sin does not equal evil.  "Missing the mark" or not doing what you should have (ie. sin) does not mean your actions or inactions were "evil".  FYI "Sinners" will be ressurrected into the 1000 year period of Christ rule.

"Free Will" is a philosophical purported ability and does not actually exist in its commonly accepted usage.  No person has total and limitless choice.  Regarding scriptural reference it is simply the ability to choose our own destination.  The same choice boundaries hold true for any functional society, which is what the end goal is.  Even the 1000 years and the final time following that, the people will have free choice over many things in their life.

Regarding "choice", knowledge is not a requirement.  Every day we make choices even with none or lacking or partial knowledge, and often choices are rather based on previous/partial experience or desire instead.  If I were asked if I wanted to be immortal, my choice would be based on desire, not knowledge, as I have no knowledge or experience of either death or immortality.

"God" (whoever that is, I assume YHWH by the conversation) cannot impose, design, or create the "end goal" for His plan and bypass all of this world.  Likewise no adult can become mature without the trials of childhood.  If all of "this world" were simply bypassed because He could, then at some point in the future man would end up being the author of his own destruction.  See "the fall" above.

[wright]

  FYI "Sinners" will be ressurrected into the 1000 year period of Christ rule.

Interesting. I don't think I've seen this version of the story before. What is its basis?

[WhiteLight]

Interesting. I don't think I've seen this version of the story before. What is its basis?

By "the story" are you referring to the bible?  Be aware that at least 60% of the "scriptures" are errant and doctrines of men.
Its basis is common sense and personal insight and decades of professional and personal study in the sciences (physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, geology), and theology and ancient languages.
What is the purpose for the 1000 year period?  The answer to that specifies who will be there.

Much of what mainstream christianity teaches is errant, so one must be careful not to subscribe to those particular stories and idioms.
However, I'm not here to evangelize or argue against other's personal beliefs, I would never profess to know all, so I have no issues with others choosing to believe whatever they prefer.

[Emily]

Why do so many people make the claim that most of those that practice Christianity are wrong. I mean, damn.

..god didn't make us in his image, we made him in ours - confusing.

...and I am sure the 40 percent that is right and inerrant is the NT, right? considering breaking the bible down 60 percent is OT and 40 percent is NT.

What makes that 40 percent right? Explain.

[ParkingPlaces]

WhiteLight, I take it you are version 38,001 of christianity.

Interesting how almost every christian has a unique view of their religion. If there 38,001 versions of how tonight's World Series game ended life would suck. But nobody cares if there are that many versions of christianity. Except is sure sounds stupid that none of you guys can agree on anything except the color of your favorite book.