And Jesus is God. So love is a diety. By your own analysis. And if it is merely symbolic - than love is merely an illusion.

According to your posts - it was in a thread called "It's all God's Fault". Is that what you were looking for?

That is a rather simplistic view of what was really an admonition to the Pharasee's who were interrogating him about the kingdom in the hopes of tricking him. That statement of Jesus was said to an audience who were in fact - NOT part of the kingdom of God, and certainly did not - now would they not - have the kingdom within them (a reference to the Kingdom of God being spiritual as opposed to physical).

The bottom line is that Jesus was not saying that everyone has the kingdom of God within them. There are numerous passages and parables following this stating that there are those who clearly fall short of becoming part of the kingdom of God.

So what is it that God created that is evil on it's own? I can list pages of the actions of man that can be described as evil - can't think of a single thing that was created evil.

It isn't about the "punishment" of death - but the heartbreak of it.
Parents don't discipline their children out of spite - they do it out of fear of the consequences. How many hearts are broken every year because of the disobedience of children who's consequeces lead to death? Drug overdoses, drunken driving, gang involvement,... on and on it goes. The issue is the severity of the consequence - not the mere act of disobedience. Like most parents - God is not unwilling to forgive. But what does a parent do about an incorragable child? One who's rebellion is like playing russian roulette with a loaded gun? Ignore it? Enable it? Isn't that the same thing as signing their death warrent? I think you've got this whole idea of "punishment" being an act of God rather than the consequence of a wrongful action. More often than not - I think it is the mercy of God that with-holds the immediate consequences of idiotic actions, in the hopes that there will be repentance. However - consequence is not a relative or subjective action. It's like a rock thrown in the water. One might avoid the splash - but the ripples run long out of view.



I don't draw analogies between human behavior and animal behavior. Human behavior is based on thought - or lack of it, an animal behaves on instinct. There's no comparison, so te question is irrelivant to me.



Jesus' message was not "about" love - his message was that HE was love - that God is love. Love is not an action - it is the "person" of God. And Love is not the way the truth and the light - unless you are claiming that Jesus is love. Not the same thing as cklaiming that it was only his "message" that is love. His message is that the world is lost, and in need of a saviour.

Actually - man has no say in what the church says beyond an individual church. It has never been man's "choice" as to who belongs to the church and who doesn't. That choice is God's.



Actually - it does not say "do not judge" - it says "as ye judge, so shall ye be judged." That's instructing one to be discerning as to how they judge - not forbidding one to judge. All through the N.T. Jesus instructs the disciples to judge. Judge circumstances, and even individuals.



Ummm... not worthy of what?

Christianity is about the gospel message - which is that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but they have an advocate in Jesus Christ, who became the cacrifice for the sins of the world - that woever believes in him, shall be reconciled to God.

That is the message of the love of Christianity. It is about becoming a disciple of Christ. Which means "follower". So... if Jesus did not "start" christianity, then who did, and why? For he built his church upon the message of the dsciples, and told them to go out into the world and spread the gospel; and teach all that he had taught them which they did. We now those teachings to be the recorded word of scripture. Without the bible - how would anyone know about christianity? You can't have one without the other.

I didn't expect it to be the church YOU belong to. There are many churches that worship and follow Jesus that are not the church you belong to.




Well - according to Jesus - he established ONE church. You either belong to that church - or you are not a christian. Plain and simple. It is not denominationaly driven, and it is not determined by the will or choice of man. One does not decide one day that they're a christain, and decide the next that they're not. That contradicts what the bible says, and aside from the bible - there is no christainity. Claiming to be a christain and rejecting the bible is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, you're wrong in your presumption, because you are equating the mind of man with the mind of God. It is obvious that man does not know the outcome of his choices, an obvious fact demonstrating that man is not omniscient - so choice always remains with the will of man when he is faced with a decision. Man also does not exist beyond the present, and makes presumptions of the future by determining his subjective view of the past. Here again, limiting his being able to determine the obvious when faced with a choice.

God is not bound by any of this - however, this does not prevent him from knowing all of the choices that everyone has made through time - since he is not bound by it. Now - if you would like to say that God cannot predetermine the choices of man - that is another topic, and is unrelated to omniscience.

Perhaps that is simple, but it appears that you and I have a diffeent understanding of what "simple" means.

the bottom line is your premise lacks a foundation, as you haven't demonstrated how the free choice of man keeps God from knowing what the decisions "were". And your analogy of the sitcome is a weak one, as - until you view it, you have no idea whether or not the words being said were scripted or not, despite the fact that the show was filmed long before you are viewing it. As far as you can tell, unless someone tells you otherwiswe, every word of a sitcom is viewed as scripted because you "assume" it is. Reality will demonstrate otherwise.

Say's who?



What church are you talking about? This does not represent the church I belong to.

Are you refering to "Origin of the Species"?

You missed the other obvious choice.

God is omniscient AND we have free will.

Demonstrate how this is not possible.

And what Islander's might that be who have not heard about Jesus?

And just in case you were wondering - it is not what you "don't know" that keeps one from heaven, s in your comment - it's knowing and choosing to reject Jesus that keeps one from heaven.

Though bad logic may be bad, ignorance trumps it.

Well - obviously, if you don't want to - you won't. But out of curiousity - what are you presuming are the alternatives... If any?

Here's one - what makes you think you deserve to be with God in heaven?

It's not the same thing. Two different processes.

That is exactly what the morning after pill is. It induces an abortion.

What did you think it did if not that?

Wow - I didn't realize you were a Columbine surviver!

Since you were standing beside her when she got shot - just exactly WHAT was it she said?

I was under the impression that you were cognizant of the basic tennets of Christianity. And you have to go way beyond Genesis to get to Christianity. And lets not dodge the issue by saying that this is not the infered doctrine.

All one need do is examine the 10 commandments to know that this was NOT a christian act - nor one encouraged, or promoted by anything in it's doctrine. To claim that this was not an isolated act by a delusional individual thinking he was fulfiling God's will - and somehow representative of the idiology of an entire belief system, demonstrates an accute ignorance to that which you are attempting to refer to.

I think it more accurate to say that some Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics, so your equasion is a false one, for your implication that merely stating one is a Catholic - makes them a Christian. This is a premise unsupported by fact.