A few questions, I would like to discuss with the Christian people here.

[salida]

Myster..

Read "A Ready Defense by Josh McDowell to start. If you study and do your homework on why the Bible is true and a fact all your questions will be answered.

 

[Lincoln0010]

So many of your questions are based upon a false dilemma... you seem to have put a lot of effort into writing this, but not a lot of actual though...

If you are honestly having any difficulty with any of these questions, I apologize, but most of them seem to be along the same lines as the first.

 

[ebia]

Huge lists of this sort of question never looks genuine.

 

[Mysterious]

First of all, I'd like to thank metherion and Reformationist for their excellent replies. Answers like these are exactly what I was hoping for when I wrote these questions, and I'll reply to them shortly.

But before I start, I'd like to ask Salida, Lincoln0010 and ebia one simple question. If you have nothing to contribute to this thread, is it really too much to ask of you not to post here? Seriously, I've come here looking for a mature discussion, and if you three are not capable of having one, the least you could do is step aside while others have one. Okay? Good.

First, I'd like to discuss the answers of metherion:

Ah. Logic inconsistencies. Gotta love them.

I like this response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
Without redefining omnipotence, the paradox can be refuted as a self-contradicting formulation. It can be helpful to re-state the paradox in this way: "Does total ability include disability?", or even, "Is the total lack of disability itself a disability?" Viewed in this light, a simple answer of "No" to the classical formulation of the question ("Can an omnipotent being create a stone...") involves no contradiction, no paradox and requires no re-definition of omnipotence. Other responses may require a nuancing of the notion of omnipotence.
Or in my words, "Does being perfect at everything include being perfect at being imperfect?" No, it doesn't.

Actually, that doesn't answer my question at all, I'm afraid. In fact, when you think about it the other questions, like "Does total ability include disability", aren't answered either. If total ability excludes the ability of disability, it is not total ability, since the ability is not total. If it does include the ability of disability, it might be total ability, but the disability makes it that one can question the total ability at some point. The same goes for omnipotence. If omnipotence excludes the ability of non-omnipotence, it is simply not omnipotence, for omnipotence is the ability to do everything one wishes.

The contradiction does not ly within the question, it lies within the very concept of omnipotence itself. It is the ability to do everything, but since the ability to do something you can't do is a subset of everything, this means that it becomes logically impossible.

If you don't like that, search wiki for "omnipotence paradox". I like 2, 3, and 4 under "types of omnipotence".

Thank you, I'll have a look at it later.

This is slightly different from the banana in that God has (supposedly) come to Earth many times to do things, like the Exodus from Egypt, Fatima, et cetera. If he or she was around to experience those things, then yes. He or she could know. If he or she wasn't around, if he or she heard of them from credible sources, then I would say he or she could "know".

But then, when you think about it, the stories of what God has done over time are solely told by the Christians themselves, or the people that 'only eat the bananas'. So how can we determine what is and what isn't a credible source? And why did you put quotes around the word know, if I may ask?

Yes. Yes it is, and yes they do. They also have the opportunity to freely endure the consequences, for good or for ill.

The son is right, it isn't a fair choice if the decision is forced upon you.

Aren't these two answers at odds? I mean, how it what happens to the people (and what happens to atheists, upon whom Christianity is forced by the threat of hell) different from what happens to the son?

God is not only Omnipotent, we believe He is Omnibenevolent. He could, theoretically, but He wouldn't.

I'm afraid I don't understand this answer. God killed all firstborn sons of Egypt to enforce the Exodus. It says so in the Bible. So how can you say that He wouldn't do such a thing?

It'll be worth more to the one who only has 5 dollars, with no more left over.

I would say to the Christian. I would say that because how the Christian spends his life can determine whether or not he gets the rewards, while the atheist can have a great time and be totally hedonistic now because, well, why not? The atheist might enjoy it more while he is here, but not necessarily.

Again, these answers seem to be at odds. Ahteists think this life is all there is, while some Christians make it seem to me that this life is just a test of good behavior. How can this life have more value for Christians, while it's everything there is for atheists?

Your life can have value to you, certainly. Heck, your life even has value to God, even though you don't believe in Him, because you prompted these questions.

Thank you. And on a side note, just because I've asked you these questions doesn't mean that I don't believe anything. I might not believe in the God you believe in, but perhaps my defenition of God is just different.

See my talking about of Hell later. Remember, not everybody has a brimstone and hellfire view of Hell.

And I'm very happy that some people don't.

God created everything. This includes time. Which means God must exist apart from time. Which means He is both "before time" and "after time".

Actually, I'm afraid that this is a conctradiction. If God exists apart from time, He isn't 'before' or 'after' anything, since those two words signify a point in time. Which means that your conclusion that He exists at a point of time where His goal is realised must be false. And even if He does, then He also exists on a point where His goals aren't achieved yet, which means that we're back where we started.

God is omnipresent. Omnipresence needs space and time. If time and the world end, and Hell still exists then, that implies Hell is outside space and time. Which means omnipresence does not apply.

But hell contains things. The souls of condemned people. Satan. How can something that is outside space contain anything? For something to contain anything it would need space, right?

Committing homosexual acts is a sin because it is sex outside of marriage, which is fornication, which is a sin. I do not think being homosexual in and of itself is a sin.

Does this mean that if people were to allow gay marriage, it wouldn't be a sin anymore? Or are you going by the biblical definition of marriage?

Because it seems that God has come and done miracles on Earth (Lourdes, for one), while as far as A know, trees haven't attack people yet.

The thing is, those miracles are only seen by the 'believers' like the trees are only seen by children.

Death isn't inevitable in b. There is hope of finding a cure before you die in b. Not so in a.

Sorry to say this, and I don't mean to offend you, but this is an example of how some Christians simply 'cheat' my questions by altering the situation. I clearly stated that the chance of him getting better is nonexistent, and you just say that there is a chance of him getting better.

Okay, so given the fact that he can't get better, would your answer still be the same?

I'm a Theistic evolutionist. As to why, more of the observable evidence supports evolution as opposed to a young created earth. While ToE isn't perfect, it fits what we know far better.

I see. Now I understand what you mean by talking to people in the crevo-forums while you know you won't achieve your goal.

One question. A while ago, I was discussing the ToE with one of my Christian friends. At some point, he told me that it was impossible for a Christian to support the ToE. Naturally, you would disagree. But might I ask how you would explain to him why it isn't?

Hope that helped.

It did. Again, thank you very much for your attempt to answer my questions, it's discussions like these which I was hoping for when I posted them. Since I formulated these questions I've had a lot of personal remarks flung at me, but it's things like these that make it worth while. If you at any point would like to withdraw from this discussion, no hard feelings.

Reformationist, I'll get to your answers shortly.

 

[velvetkitsune0]

HI, Im not a fully mature Christian, but I do know things, so don't let my youth fool you.

To one of you questions:

1. The heaviest stone: You stated that 'Can God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift?'.
To answer that (this one is kinda simple) if you created a computer or anything like that by hand, would you be able to lift it. And you must remember that God is not a God of the flesh but a God of the spirit.

4. The Dictator:
Free will is something you can get in trouble for too you know. I can go and kill or rob someone that doesn't mean I won't pay for it later. Now the subject of going to Heaven or Hell. You have the choice wheter you want to burn or have eternal life.


11. Of all places!:

God has many characteristics, including some we have discussed before, like being all-powerful (omnipotent) and all knowing (omniscient). One other characteristic of God that is mentioned quite often is the idea that He is present everywhere, or omnipresent. There is no place where God isn’t present. There is, however, one problem if this were true. You see, hell, according to Christians, is also a place. Which leads us to the conclusion that God must also be in hell. But that can’t be, since hell is supposed to be a place devoid of God and His love. It would be rather strange if good Christians get to be with God in heaven, while atheists also get to be with Him in hell. Not to mention that if God is in hell, and hell is only for sinners, God would have to be classified as a sinner himself.


God is not in Hell because Hell is a place of sin and evil, since God is holy he would not in Hell.


9. Heaven and hell:
Marriage only lasts through life. After our earthly life, that marriage is over( which is why remarrying after your spouse has died is not considered a sin. 'til death do us part)

5 God’s gender:
5d. One last thing. This one is even trickier than the ones before, but I’m asking anyway. I noticed that a lot of the Christians (not all, mind you) are against gay marriage. However, something most of them (at least the Catholic ones) agree on, is that Catholic priests should not be married, since they are ‘married to God’ as the expression goes in many countries. All fine so far. But. God is referred to as a ‘He’. Male. Catholic priests are also male. But if Catholic priests are married to or have a union with God, then this means that a male has married another male. Gay marriage. Right?

Now I do find gay marriage wrong but the kinda marriage you're talking about here with God and these priests is not the kind of union of a man and a woman. This kind of marriage refers to being married as in being commited to God and only God and that you don't lust for worldly things and sin.



I hope this helped some and I'll reply more later, but right now I have homework.

Holla at ya later.

 

[Skaloop]

1. The heaviest stone: You stated that 'Can God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift?'.
To answer that (this one is kinda simple) if you created a computer or anything like that by hand, would you be able to lift it.

That answers nothing. Sure, I can lift a computer. I could also make a giant cube of concrete that I couldn't lift. Besides, I (and all the rest of us) are not omnipotent.

 

[indagroove]

Not these old omnipotence paradoxes again !

The real question is can God make 2+2=3
Or make the angles of a triangle add up to more then 180

Or most important of all....

Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

Come on dude, be original !

 

[MikeMcK]

Hello there, thank you for honouring my thread with your presence!

I have a few questions, which I would like to discuss with the Christian people on this board. And since this is one of the biggest and most active Christian forums in the world, this seems like the perfect place. The questions concern God, His characteristics and existence, Christianity, Ethics, etc.

In the past, some Christians who I presented these questions to have felt offended. I sincerely hope that this is not the case here, and apologise in advance if it is. It is not my intention to insult anyone or attack your religion, I merely search for an in-depth discussion concerning your religion.

Three more things, before we get started. First, I apologise for any spelling- or grammatical errors made in my posts. English is not my first language, since I’m from Holland, and even though I always use the spelling checker some mistakes slip through. Second, I’m not sure whether this thread really belongs in this section. It seems more appropriate for the debate section, but I can’t post it there because I need to post a hundred times elsewhere before that, and I don’t feel like wasting your and my time writing a hundred posts just to make this thread. And third, for your own sake, don’t try to answer all these questions at once. It took me days to think of them and weeks to formulate them properly, so don’t stay up late trying to answer every question. I wouldn’t want to endanger your health.

Ready? Okay then, here we go:

A number of questions, directed towards the Christian people here.


1. The heaviest stone:
Here’s a classic one, to get things going. Some of you have probably heard this one before. God is said to be omnipotent, or all-powerful. Which means that He can do everything He wants. So, can God create a stone that is so heavy that God Himself cannot lift it?

2. The true fruit:
All right. Imagine a man, living all by himself in a fruit garden. This garden has all kinds of fruits, like apples, bananas, oranges, etc. However, this man doesn’t eat the different sorts of fruit. In fact, he only eats one sort of fruits, the bananas. That’s the only fruit he eats, every day, for his entire life. And every time after eating a banana, he says: ”This banana is delicious. I made the right choice, because bananas are the most delicious fruit on the planet. It is the true fruit!”

Now, this man has the full right to say what he says about bananas. But does he know it, when he says that bananas are the true fruit?

2b. Now, let us transfer this analogy to religion. Imagine a religious man, a Christian, who has been a Christian all his life, saying that Christianity is the true religion and should be preferred over all other religions. Now, this man has the full right to say and to believe that. But does he know it?

3. Job’s Problem:
As you all know, there is a lot of suffering in this world. War, hunger, diseases, you name it. Now, when I sometimes ask Christian people why there is suffering in the world, and why the all-loving God doesn’t stop this (since He is omnipotent), some of them say that God is testing us. He is making us suffer to see whether we will stay loyal to Him. They sometimes refer to the story of Job, in which God takes everything from Job (his wife, his children, his land, his health) because Satan challenged Him and wondered whether Job would stay true to Him.
Now, being God, He has a certain right to accept this challenge and let Satan have his wicked way with Job for the sake of His challenge. According to the Christians, He gave us everything, so it isn’t too illogical that He can take it away (although not all Christians will agree with this).
There’s just one little thing that bothers me. God, according to Christians, is
All-knowing. He knows everything about past, present and future. This means that He didn’t have to accept Satan’s challenge, since He already knew Job would choose Him. In fact, there’s no use in testing any of us by suffering at all, because God already knows who will come out of the test, and thus who are the true Christians. So why does He do it anyway?


3b. Some of you might answer that God might already have known that Job would remain faithful to Him, but that Satan didn’t. But then, does that really matter? I mean, destroying an innocent men’s life just to prove that He’s right doesn’t seem like something a benevolent God would do, right?

4. The Dictator:
Once, in a country far, far away, there was a cruel dictator. He had ruled over his little country for decades and made the inhabitants suffer a great deal. One day however, there was uproar in the country, and an angry crowd gathered before the house of the dictator, only to be stopped by his own private army. The people were furious, and they demanded elections. They said that they wanted to have a choice, to express their free will. “Okay”, said the dictator, “As you wish. I will organize elections, and you can freely choose between me and an impartial other candidate. However, if any of you dare not to vote for me, I will put you in the deepest dungeon and torture you horribly!”

Now the dictator gave his people a choice. But is it a free choice? Do the people really have an opportunity to express their free will?

4b. Later that day, the dictator’s ten-year-old son walks up to him, and asks him whether he can have some candy. The dictator nods, opens a drawer, takes out two pieces of chocolate and puts one of them in each hand. The reaches out his hands towards his son and opens them, displaying a piece of white chocolate in the right hand and a piece of brown chocolate in the left hand. The dictator tells his son that he can pick whichever he wants. So the boy picks out the right hand, containing the white piece of chocolate.
However, upon doing this, the dictator becomes furious and gives his son a mighty blow to the side of his head. Crying, the boy asks him why he did that. The dictator answers that he didn’t want him to pick the white piece of chocolate, and that he has the right to punish him because of that. The son disagrees. After all, what’s the use of having a choice when ultimately the decision is forced upon you anyway? According to him, it is not a fair choice.

So who’s right? The dictator, or his son?

4c. Now, if your answer to the last two questions was ‘no’, which seems quite possible, please answer me this;
The Bible says that God gave us free will. He gave us a choice. (In fact, this free choice seems to be the root of all our errors. Homosexuality = free choice. Catching HIV while trying to support your family by selling your body = free choice. Drown in the Tsunami = free choice.) However, if we don’t choose the side of God, we will burn in hell, which probably hurts a lot. And we don’t just go to hell for a short time, but we stay there for all eternity. Now, I agree with you that choosing between heaven and hell is a choice. But is it a free choice? Is it really a free choice anymore than the dictator gave his people or his son a free choice? Or does free choice include the acceptance of whatever choice you make, without adding any negative consequences to it?


4d. Back to the dictator. During the night after the original riots, a small group of angry people is still determined to take care of the dictator. They manage to enter his house, but they can’t make their way past the guards in front of the dictator’s bedroom. So in the end, they decide to kidnap the son of the dictator instead. They take the young boy to their secret headquarters, and once there, they send a message to the dictator, telling him that if he doesn’t end his reign over their people, they will kill the boy. They feel that this if fair, since after all, the boy is the son of the dictator. The boy himself disagrees, arguing that his father’s choices aren’t to blame on him. It wasn’t his will for the people to be suppressed by the dictator.

Suppose that the people kill the boy if the dictator doesn’t stop his reign. Would this be a morally acceptable thing to do?

4e. If your answer to this last question was no, consider what is written in Exodus 12: 29-30. Can God, a being that is supposedly perfect, do something that is morally unacceptable? And if He can’t, doesn’t that raise some questions about His omnipotence, since omnipotence is the ability to do anything?

5 God’s gender:
[sarcasm] Wow, thank you very much for insulting my religion [/sarcasm]. A statement that a Christian girl once made to me for referring to God as a ‘She’. Unfortunately, instead of making me feel sorry, it made me feel curious by raising a couple of questions.


For example, last time I checked God wasn’t made out of matter. No matter means no genitals. No genitals, means that technically one cannot refer to God as a ‘He’. Or at least not forbid anyone else to refer to God as a ‘She’. Right? (If your answer to this question is yes, you can skip questions 5b, 5c and 5d.)

5b. Of course, some of you will respond to this saying that the bible refers to God as a ‘He’. However, the bible was written in a time when men were considered superior to women and dominated them. Women were considered as ‘personal property’. So at the time, if anyone were to refer to a ‘supreme being’, which God was supposed to be, using ‘She’, he wouldn’t have been taken serious for an instant. So people referred to God as ‘He’. But does this really mean that God is a ‘He’? (If your answer to this question is yes, you can skip questions 5c and 5d.)

5c. Another thing. I (and note that I am a male) consider women to be the superior sex. Naturally, this means that I consider men the inferior sex. So far no harm done, at least not to the ladies here. However, here comes the tricky part. If I refer to God as ‘Him’ this means that I consider Him male, or belonging to the inferior sex. Which is downright insulting, considering God is supposed to be a superior being. You see the dilemma. I can’t call God a ‘She’ because Christian people won’t tolerate it, but I also can’t call Him a ‘He’ since that would be insulting Him too. What am I to do?

5d. One last thing. This one is even trickier than the ones before, but I’m asking anyway. I noticed that a lot of the Christians (not all, mind you) are against gay marriage. However, something most of them (at least the Catholic ones) agree on, is that Catholic priests should not be married, since they are ‘married to God’ as the expression goes in many countries. All fine so far. But. God is referred to as a ‘He’. Male. Catholic priests are also male. But if Catholic priests are married to or have a union with God, then this means that a male has married another male. Gay marriage. Right?

6. The good guy:
One day, a fisherman has a heart attack while fishing on the side of a lake, and falls into the water. A stranger on the side of the lake sees the man struggling not to drown, dives into the water and rescues the fisherman. The fisherman thanks the stranger, and asks him why he saved his life, since he was a total stranger to him. Since nobody else was watching him, he could have easily let him drown without having to endanger his life by diving in with him. The stranger answers that he saved the fisherman because he is a Christian, and he believes that good deeds like saving another persons life will get him to heaven.
A year later, the same fisherman has yet another heart attack on the side of the same lake, and hits the water again. Another stranger on the side of the lake sees this, and saves the fisherman like the first stranger did. After catching his breath, the fisherman asks this stranger the same question as he asked the other stranger a year ago, curious whether this is, like the other man, a Christian. This stranger, however, tells the fisherman that he is an atheist, and that he doesn't believe his good deeds will get him to heaven. To him, saving the life of the fisherman and seeing his happiness is enough reward.

Now, out of the two strangers, who had the better motive? The Christian, who saved the fisherman because he wanted to get the reward of going to heaven, or the atheist, who apparently didn’t need a reward that big for saving the fisherman?

You know, I saved all of your questions to a Word file, so that I could take the time to write out some good, detailed, and Biblical answers for you.

But the further into it I got, the more I realized that all this academic excercise is doing is distracting us from the real point.

Mysterious, if you were to die today, you would be ushered immediately to God's courts. When you stood before God, would you stand before him as a child of His, or an enemy of His.

Let's say that God were to ask you, "Why should I allow you into Heaven". What would your response be?

 

[metherion]

I would like to continue in a bit. By Monday I have a chemical kinetics test, a "topic-briefing" thing in history, a novel to read, and travel plans for Thanksgiving to arrange.

It may take a while but I will respond again. Would you like the response in chunks or all at once? I myself would prefer all at once, since that way I can make sure I answer everything, but they're your questions and I will leave them up to you.

Metherion

 

[ebia]

Ok, you say your questions are genuine so I'll give it a shot.

1. The heaviest stone:
Here’s a classic one, to get things going. Some of you have probably heard this one before. God is said to be omnipotent, or all-powerful. Which means that He can do everything He wants. So, can God create a stone that is so heavy that God Himself cannot lift it?

The concept of omnipotence (at least the naieve concept) is flawed. Just like most naieve concepts addressing ideas connected to infinity. Your problem is with omnipotence, which is a Greek concept, not a biblical one. There is no biblical problem with God being limited to that which is not logically nonsense - at least within a logical creation.

2. The true fruit:
All right. Imagine a man, living all by himself in a fruit garden. This garden has all kinds of fruits, like apples, bananas, oranges, etc. However, this man doesn’t eat the different sorts of fruit. In fact, he only eats one sort of fruits, the bananas. That’s the only fruit he eats, every day, for his entire life. And every time after eating a banana, he says: ”This banana is delicious. I made the right choice, because bananas are the most delicious fruit on the planet. It is the true fruit!”

Now, this man has the full right to say what he says about bananas. But does he know it, when he says that bananas are the true fruit?

2b. Now, let us transfer this analogy to religion. Imagine a religious man, a Christian, who has been a Christian all his life, saying that Christianity is the true religion and should be preferred over all other religions. Now, this man has the full right to say and to believe that. But does he know it?

I've never met a banana that claimed to be the only fruit. Christians believe God because they experience God (equivalent to your bloke liking bananas because they taste good). They know their God is the only god because he says so. (equivalent to the banana claiming to be the only fruit). There is your difference.

3. Job’s Problem:
As you all know, there is a lot of suffering in this world. War, hunger, diseases, you name it. Now, when I sometimes ask Christian people why there is suffering in the world, and why the all-loving God doesn’t stop this (since He is omnipotent), some of them say that God is testing us. He is making us suffer to see whether we will stay loyal to Him. They sometimes refer to the story of Job, in which God takes everything from Job (his wife, his children, his land, his health) because Satan challenged Him and wondered whether Job would stay true to Him.
Now, being God, He has a certain right to accept this challenge and let Satan have his wicked way with Job for the sake of His challenge. According to the Christians, He gave us everything, so it isn’t too illogical that He can take it away (although not all Christians will agree with this).
There’s just one little thing that bothers me. God, according to Christians, is
All-knowing. He knows everything about past, present and future. This means that He didn’t have to accept Satan’s challenge, since He already knew Job would choose Him. In fact, there’s no use in testing any of us by suffering at all, because God already knows who will come out of the test, and thus who are the true Christians. So why does He do it anyway?

The book of Job is an exploration of why God allows suffering. There is no simple answer that isn't badly flawed (the book of Job admits this when it has God say at the end effectively "I'm not going to tell you") - it's a question we can (and should) only grapple with and gradually develop complex partial answers. Christians do everyone (themselves included) a disservice when they give pat answers to the problem of suffering.

4. The Dictator:
Once, in a country far, far away, there was a cruel dictator. He had ruled over his little country for decades and made the inhabitants suffer a great deal. One day however, there was uproar in the country, and an angry crowd gathered before the house of the dictator, only to be stopped by his own private army. The people were furious, and they demanded elections. They said that they wanted to have a choice, to express their free will. “Okay”, said the dictator, “As you wish. I will organize elections, and you can freely choose between me and an impartial other candidate. However, if any of you dare not to vote for me, I will put you in the deepest dungeon and torture you horribly!”

Now the dictator gave his people a choice. But is it a free choice? Do the people really have an opportunity to express their free will?

Strictly it depends how you define free will I suppose. What was the relevence again? You seem to be addressing a poor characture of the Christian God (albeit one portrayed quite happily by some Christians).

4b. Later that day, the dictator’s ten-year-old son walks up to him, and asks him whether he can have some candy. The dictator nods, opens a drawer, takes out two pieces of chocolate and puts one of them in each hand. The reaches out his hands towards his son and opens them, displaying a piece of white chocolate in the right hand and a piece of brown chocolate in the left hand. The dictator tells his son that he can pick whichever he wants. So the boy picks out the right hand, containing the white piece of chocolate.
However, upon doing this, the dictator becomes furious and gives his son a mighty blow to the side of his head. Crying, the boy asks him why he did that. The dictator answers that he didn’t want him to pick the white piece of chocolate, and that he has the right to punish him because of that. The son disagrees. After all, what’s the use of having a choice when ultimately the decision is forced upon you anyway? According to him, it is not a fair choice.

So who’s right? The dictator, or his son?

See above.

4c. Now, if your answer to the last two questions was ‘no’, which seems quite possible, please answer me this;
The Bible says that God gave us free will. He gave us a choice. (In fact, this free choice seems to be the root of all our errors. Homosexuality = free choice. Catching HIV while trying to support your family by selling your body = free choice. Drown in the Tsunami = free choice.) However, if we don’t choose the side of God, we will burn in hell, which probably hurts a lot

I don't believe anyone will. No properly educated person would make the poor choice (not because of the threat, but because it's the poor choice). God is the perfect teacher, therefore I'm sure he will make sure everybody eventually does have the education to make the best choice for themselves.

4e. If your answer to this last question was no, consider what is written in Exodus 12: 29-30. Can God, a being that is supposedly perfect, do something that is morally unacceptable? And if He can’t, doesn’t that raise some questions about His omnipotence, since omnipotence is the ability to do anything?

Exodus 12 is written to tell God's people about his power. That does not mean that God would actually do what he is described as doing.

5 God’s gender:

God doesn't have a gender. Jesus' human nature is obviously male, but beyond that God is neither male nor female - neither are we 'in Christ'. (Ref: St Paul). Refering to God as she is fine.

5d. One last thing. This one is even trickier than the ones before, but I’m asking anyway. I noticed that a lot of the Christians (not all, mind you) are against gay marriage. However, something most of them (at least the Catholic ones) agree on, is that Catholic priests should not be married, since they are ‘married to God’ as the expression goes in many countries. All fine so far. But. God is referred to as a ‘He’. Male. Catholic priests are also male. But if Catholic priests are married to or have a union with God, then this means that a male has married another male. Gay marriage. Right?

Kind of, yes. Male religious (ie 'monks') are correctly referred to as brides of Christ just as nuns are.

6. The good guy:
One day, a fisherman has a heart attack while fishing on the side of a lake, and falls into the water. A stranger on the side of the lake sees the man struggling not to drown, dives into the water and rescues the fisherman. The fisherman thanks the stranger, and asks him why he saved his life, since he was a total stranger to him. Since nobody else was watching him, he could have easily let him drown without having to endanger his life by diving in with him. The stranger answers that he saved the fisherman because he is a Christian, and he believes that good deeds like saving another persons life will get him to heaven.

He would, of course, be incorrect.

A year later, the same fisherman has yet another heart attack on the side of the same lake, and hits the water again. Another stranger on the side of the lake sees this, and saves the fisherman like the first stranger did. After catching his breath, the fisherman asks this stranger the same question as he asked the other stranger a year ago, curious whether this is, like the other man, a Christian. This stranger, however, tells the fisherman that he is an atheist, and that he doesn't believe his good deeds will get him to heaven. To him, saving the life of the fisherman and seeing his happiness is enough reward.

Now, out of the two strangers, who had the better motive? The Christian, who saved the fisherman because he wanted to get the reward of going to heaven, or the atheist, who apparently didn’t need a reward that big for saving the fisherman?

The atheist. The Christian's motives are both selfish and wrong. That doesn't mean that most Christians wouldn't be doing it for much better reasons.

 

[Radagast]

1. The heaviest stone:
Here’s a classic one, to get things going. Some of you have probably heard this one before. God is said to be omnipotent, or all-powerful. Which means that He can do everything He wants. So, can God create a stone that is so heavy that God Himself cannot lift it?

Oh, please, not that one again!

A meaningless or self-contradictory phrase doesn't suddenly become meaningful by adding "can God" to the front.

 

[Dasdream]

1. The heaviest stone:
Here’s a classic one, to get things going. Some of you have probably heard this one before. God is said to be omnipotent, or all-powerful. Which means that He can do everything He wants. So, can God create a stone that is so heavy that God Himself cannot lift it?

No there isn't anything God can't do, he would not create a 'stone" that even he can't carry and he would create a stone for us that we can't carry.

2. The true fruit:
All right. Imagine a man, living all by himself in a fruit garden. This garden has all kinds of fruits, like apples, bananas, oranges, etc. However, this man doesn’t eat the different sorts of fruit. In fact, he only eats one sort of fruits, the bananas. That’s the only fruit he eats, every day, for his entire life. And every time after eating a banana, he says: ”This banana is delicious. I made the right choice, because bananas are the most delicious fruit on the planet. It is the true fruit!”

Now in order to make that statement he would have had to eat all the fruits, If the banana is the "true fruit" then it would be the only one God created. There is no true fruit or wrong fruit, it is a matter of opinion.

2b. Now, let us transfer this analogy to religion. Imagine a religious man, a Christian, who has been a Christian all his life, saying that Christianity is the true religion and should be preferred over all other religions. Now, this man has the full right to say and to believe that. But does he know it?

Ok as a born and raised Christian I will tell you that no religion is perfect, but our God is the real God just by what the bible says. Our God doesn't say to kill or hunt ot talks about pain and suffiring, it's the oppisoite, talks about non violence, peace and loving your neighbor, Heck Just look at the Ten Commandments Found in Exodus 20.

3. Job’s Problem:
As you all know, there is a lot of suffering in this world. War, hunger, diseases, you name it. Now, when I sometimes ask Christian people why there is suffering in the world, and why the all-loving God doesn’t stop this (since He is omnipotent), some of them say that God is testing us. He is making us suffer to see whether we will stay loyal to Him. They sometimes refer to the story of Job, in which God takes everything from Job (his wife, his children, his land, his health) because Satan challenged Him and wondered whether Job would stay true to Him.
Now, being God, He has a certain right to accept this challenge and let Satan have his wicked way with Job for the sake of His challenge. According to the Christians, He gave us everything, so it isn’t too illogical that He can take it away (although not all Christians will agree with this).
There’s just one little thing that bothers me. God, according to Christians, is
All-knowing. He knows everything about past, present and future. This means that He didn’t have to accept Satan’s challenge, since He already knew Job would choose Him. In fact, there’s no use in testing any of us by suffering at all, because God already knows who will come out of the test, and thus who are the true Christians. So why does He do it anyway?

God does let us do things we can't handle, if God knows that we can win the challenge he will put us in the situation, he has that much faith in us, but before we can do that, we need to have faith in him. As far as all the pain going on in the world. God can't control us. Unfortunatly people don't have enough faith to feel protected. Noah was safe, Daniel was safe, David was safe, because they had faith, nowadays people want to solve their issues without God, that leads to problems. Thanks to sin, God can't control the world, but he can still help us....if we let him.

4. The Dictator:
Once, in a country far, far away, there was a cruel dictator. He had ruled over his little country for decades and made the inhabitants suffer a great deal. One day however, there was uproar in the country, and an angry crowd gathered before the house of the dictator, only to be stopped by his own private army. The people were furious, and they demanded elections. They said that they wanted to have a choice, to express their free will. “Okay”, said the dictator, “As you wish. I will organize elections, and you can freely choose between me and an impartial other candidate. However, if any of you dare not to vote for me, I will put you in the deepest dungeon and torture you horribly!”

Now the dictator gave his people a choice. But is it a free choice? Do the people really have an opportunity to express their free will?

Obviously not. by threateneing people if they don't vote for them, is pretty much taking their freedom away.

4b. Later that day, the dictator’s ten-year-old son walks up to him, and asks him whether he can have some candy. The dictator nods, opens a drawer, takes out two pieces of chocolate and puts one of them in each hand. The reaches out his hands towards his son and opens them, displaying a piece of white chocolate in the right hand and a piece of brown chocolate in the left hand. The dictator tells his son that he can pick whichever he wants. So the boy picks out the right hand, containing the white piece of chocolate.
However, upon doing this, the dictator becomes furious and gives his son a mighty blow to the side of his head. Crying, the boy asks him why he did that. The dictator answers that he didn’t want him to pick the white piece of chocolate, and that he has the right to punish him because of that. The son disagrees. After all, what’s the use of having a choice when ultimately the decision is forced upon you anyway? According to him, it is not a fair choice. So who’s right? The dictator, or his son?

Clearly the son is right. if you give someone a choice, that means they can take either one without punishment.. To answer your next question God gives us the freedom to choose between good or evil. If the father would have told his son "if you choose the white one, I will hurt you" but he didn't. he didn't give his son a warning Unlike this man God did give us a warning. God is saying that if you can resist sin and temptaion and accept God into your heart, you will go to heaven, but if you accept option B (sin, hate, temptation) you won't be going into Heaven. See, God gives us an option, but unlike the son's father, God gives us a warning and lets us know what will happen if we take either option A or option B.

We can look at it from this point of view. If someone put 2 cars infront of you, both look brand new, but one of them has a bad engine, broken heater, no air conditioner ect. Now the person that is giving you the option of taking one car, does not tell you which one is the broken down crapper. When you finally select your chioce you end up taking the broken down car, afterwards you will feel betrayed and upset because the man didn't tell you what would have happened if you took that car. See, but God does tell us what will happen if we take either option A or B. God gives us the freedom to choose, but he lets us know what would happen if we chose either one.

 

[Dasdream]

Due to the length of the previous post second part is here

4d. Back to the dictator. During the night after the original riots, a small group of angry people is still determined to take care of the dictator. They manage to enter his house, but they can’t make their way past the guards in front of the dictator’s bedroom. So in the end, they decide to kidnap the son of the dictator instead. They take the young boy to their secret headquarters, and once there, they send a message to the dictator, telling him that if he doesn’t end his reign over their people, they will kill the boy. They feel that this if fair, since after all, the boy is the son of the dictator. The boy himself disagrees, arguing that his father’s choices aren’t to blame on him. It wasn’t his will for the people to be suppressed by the dictator. Suppose that the people kill the boy if the dictator doesn’t stop his reign. Would this be a morally acceptable thing to do?


Obviously not again. This is called blackmailing. Now in your next question you asked if in Exodus God did the samething? yes he did, but read verse 13. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt." See he gave them a warning, he told them that if they did not put the lambs blood on their door, their first born would die. I am sure Pharaoh heard about this, but as you can see, he didn't believe in God and didn't care for God, so obviously he didn't bother to do listen to the warnings and you see what happened. Once again God gave us an option to place blood over the door or not and again he gave us a warning of what would happen if you didn't.. Yes I realize that the people that kidnapped the boy, gave a warning to the father, but look at both stories. The men where going to either kill the father or the boy by knife, gun or something else, God did not physically kill the first borns, he sent a black cloud, no toruring, no pain, no gun shot, no suffering, he just lay the borns to rest. God had a point to make aswell. not only did he want Pharaoh to let the peopel go, but he wnted to prove to Pharaoh that he did exist. When they saw the boy they saw no physical marks on him, no signs of struggling, same goes for all the first borns in Egypt, no physical marks or signs of struggling. Don't know abut you, but that would have convinced me that God does exist.

5 God’s gender:
Wow, thank you very much for insulting my religion A statement that a Christian girl once made to me for referring to God as a ‘She’. Unfortunately, instead of making me feel sorry, it made me feel curious by raising a couple of questions. For example, last time I checked God wasn’t made out of matter. No matter means no genitals. No genitals, means that technically one cannot refer to God as a ‘He’. Or at least not forbid anyone else to refer to God as a ‘She’ Right?

umm no read Genesis 1;26. "And God said, Let us make man in our image" 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.."

Need I say more?


5b. Of course, some of you will respond to this saying that the bible refers to God as a ‘He’. However, the bible was written in a time when men were considered superior to women and dominated them. Women were considered as ‘personal property’. So at the time, if anyone were to refer to a ‘supreme being’, which God was supposed to be, using ‘She’, he wouldn’t have been taken serious for an instant. So people referred to God as ‘He’. But does this really mean that God is a ‘He’?


God is not afraid of anyone. he would not change words so people would take him serious. heck alot of people don't take the Bible serious today, are we going to change it so people would take it serious, like you say God did?

5c. Another thing. I (and note that I am a male) consider women to be the superior sex. Naturally, this means that I consider men the inferior sex. So far no harm done, at least not to the ladies here. However, here comes the tricky part. If I refer to God as ‘Him’ this means that I consider Him male, or belonging to the inferior sex. Which is downright insulting, considering God is supposed to be a superior being. You see the dilemma. I can’t call God a ‘She’ because Christian people won’t tolerate it, but I also can’t call Him a ‘He’ since that would be insulting Him too. What am I to do?

You consider women to besuperior, but it's not like that. We are all equal, God did use a female to give birth to his only son correct? and most of the stories in the Bible involve men. So really noone is betetr then anyone because God used them all. You should call him what he is a male and eliminate your thoughts and opinions on women being better then men.

5d. One last thing. This one is even trickier than the ones before, but I’m asking anyway. I noticed that a lot of the Christians (not all, mind you) are against gay marriage. However, something most of them (at least the Catholic ones) agree on, is that Catholic priests should not be married, since they are ‘married to God’ as the expression goes in many countries. All fine so far. But. God is referred to as a ‘He’. Male. Catholic priests are also male. But if Catholic priests are married to or have a union with God, then this means that a male has married another male. Gay marriage. Right?


lol, I love God does that mean I am gay too?

6. The good guy:
One day, a fisherman has a heart attack while fishing on the side of a lake, and falls into the water. A stranger on the side of the lake sees the man struggling not to drown, dives into the water and rescues the fisherman. The fisherman thanks the stranger, and asks him why he saved his life, since he was a total stranger to him. Since nobody else was watching him, he could have easily let him drown without having to endanger his life by diving in with him. The stranger answers that he saved the fisherman because he is a Christian, and he believes that good deeds like saving another persons life will get him to heaven.
A year later, the same fisherman has yet another heart attack on the side of the same lake, and hits the water again. Another stranger on the side of the lake sees this, and saves the fisherman like the first stranger did. After catching his breath, the fisherman asks this stranger the same question as he asked the other stranger a year ago, curious whether this is, like the other man, a Christian. This stranger, however, tells the fisherman that he is an atheist, and that he doesn't believe his good deeds will get him to heaven. To him, saving the life of the fisherman and seeing his happiness is enough reward.

Now, out of the two strangers, who had the better motive? The Christian, who saved the fisherman because he wanted to get the reward of going to heaven, or the atheist, who apparently didn’t need a reward that big for saving the fisherman? [/quote]

The Atheist, strange of me to say as a Christian, but the athiest had no reason to save the man. The story of the Good Samaritan, he was not from the same religion as the guy that was beaten and bruised, as a matter of fact they were enemies, but the man said just because we are enemies doesn't mean I should let you here to die. That is a wonderful lesson that some countries should learn. I say in my book that we should not be Indian Givers, in which we do something and expect something in return. We should help people because you want to and not because you want something in return. It does matter how many good deeds you do, but it's the meaning behind it that will effect you, if you do it because you want to go into heaven,it may not work, if you do it because you truly love your neighbor it will

 

[BuzWeaver]

If you want to explore the questions like this I would strongly recommend Ravi Zacharias a Christian Apologist: (do a search I don't have a high enough post count to link)

Here you will find his radio archive Just Thinking and Let My People Think. In Just Thinking you'll find his lectures from various Universities throughout the US and the World. The one from Georgia Tech was a lecture over a series of days where he answered questions, however you can see many different Q&A's.

 

[Key]

Anyone But me find is a bit tiresome that the same questions keep comming back again and again.

To answer your question in full.

You have these problems and questions because you do not know God.

These types of questiosn are normally the result of a "Box God" problem you seem to possess, the way it works is, You only see a "Box God", this is an idea that we can contain in our mind, that we place limits onbecause of our own inability to Grasp what God truly is, but that is not God, that is a humans idea of what God is, as such, it will have faults. But Gods does not posses these faults.

To Answer your first Question:

You say God is "All Powerful" but that is your concept, and is like a childs understaning of things. It is a means in a way to try and explain to a 10 year old aerodynamics. They might get the concept, or a prat of the concept,, but it will be faulty and incomplete. Sounds odd but this is what you are doing. You have placed a 10 year olds understaning and treatign it as a absloute. If you want to learn about God, I would be willing, but first you need to set aside these simlition concepts, and be willing to learn the truth.

And untill that day, No answer you receive will ever be complete, because you just do not understand the whole situation. Just as that 10 years old child will not full grasp how a plane really flys.

God Bless

Key

 

[Mysterious]

Hello again. I'd like to thank the people who attempted to answer the questions while I was away. I'll get to your answers shortly, after I comment on a few replies:

Not these old omnipotence paradoxes again !
The real question is can God make 2+2=3
Or make the angles of a triangle add up to more then 180
Or most important of all....
Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
Come on dude, be original !

I know that there are numerous ways to formulate the question, but would it really add something besides originality? Although the words may differ, the question just stays the same.
I have, however, though of a nice alternative for this question. Maybe the people here who grew tired of the first formulation will like this one:
God is omnipotent, meaning that He can do everything He wants. He is also benevolent, meaning that He can only do good things. These two characteristics seem to contradict each other. You see, If God could do something bad, He would not be benevolent. If He could not do anything bad whilst He wanted to, He would not be omnipotent. So how do these two characteristics co-exist?

You know, I saved all of your questions to a Word file, so that I could take the time to write out some good, detailed, and Biblical answers for you.
But the further into it I got, the more I realized that all this academic excercise is doing is distracting us from the real point.

To be honest, I get the feeling that you are only saying that because you don't feel like answering the questions. I mean, who determines what the real point of this thread is?

Mysterious, if you were to die today, you would be ushered immediately to God's courts. When you stood before God, would you stand before him as a child of His, or an enemy of His.

Since this is a rather personal question, I'm not going to answer this on the forums. But I will send you a pm if you don't mind.

Let's say that God were to ask you, "Why should I allow you into Heaven". What would your response be?

"What about all the others?"

It may take a while but I will respond again. Would you like the response in chunks or all at once? I myself would prefer all at once, since that way I can make sure I answer everything, but they're your questions and I will leave them up to you.

All at once will be best, I think. Thank you, and good luck on your test.

Oh, please, not that one again!
A meaningless or self-contradictory phrase doesn't suddenly become meaningful by adding "can God" to the front.

First, whether something is meaningless is not decided by you. Second, the question is not self-contradictory, the concept of omnipotence is. And third, frankly I don't understand why a lot of people just ignore all the other questions just because they don't like the first one. Simply skip it and move to questions you do like.

If you want to explore the questions like this I would strongly recommend Ravi Zacharias a Christian Apologist: (do a search I don't have a high enough post count to link)
Here you will find his radio archive Just Thinking and Let My People Think. In Just Thinking you'll find his lectures from various Universities throughout the US and the World. The one from Georgia Tech was a lecture over a series of days where he answered questions, however you can see many different Q&A's.

As much as you may be sincere, I'd really rather not.
Suppose we were discussing The theory of evolution, and you asked me some questions about it. Would you like it if I just told you to go and read "The origin of Species" or "The descent of Man"? Of course not. If you wanted to read about the topic instead of discussing it, you would have visited a library, not a forum. The same goes for me. I simply want to have a discussion. And if Mister Zacharias can answer all my questions, why don't you just use his argumentation to answer my questions?

Anyone But me find is a bit tiresome that the same questions keep comming back again and again.
To answer your question in full.
You have these problems and questions because you do not know God.

I'd like you to answer questions 2 and 13. Maybe after that, we can talk some more about this.

 

[MikeMcK]

To be honest, I get the feeling that you are only saying that because you don't feel like answering the questions. I mean, who determines what the real point of this thread is?

No, I really was being sincere when I said that.

I really did save your post and I did start to answer your questions.

Here's the thing, though. It's not that I don't want to answer your questions.

In fact, I love to talk about the Bible and about the Lord and to help people to understand what Jesus taught and what the Bible teaches us and how it impacts our lives today.

I mean, heck, that's why I teach so many Bible studies at our church.

But I believe that there are many times when these questions, as interesting as they may be, are just a distraction from the real issue at hand.

Asking whether or not God can create a rock so big He can't lift it, or what somebody's motivation for saving somebody are interesting questions and, in their place can be great for a philosophical debate.

But neither of these questions are going to mean anything when you stand before God.

Instead of asking about big rocks and drowning fishermen, your number 1 question right now should be, "If there is a God, then what does His existance mean to me".

When you die and go to stand before God, He isn't going to ask you about whether or not you think He can make a big rock. He's going to ask you if you've been born again.

I promise you that if you want to talk about our standing before God and how you can go from being an enemy of His, bound for Hell, to a child of His, welcomed home to Heaven to fellowship with Him forever, I will spend any amount of time with you and answer any question you have.

But until we get that out of the way, the other questions are just distractions from the important issues.

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationist, I'll get to your answers shortly.

Did you forget about responding to me?

 

[HolyGuardianAngels]

AS Christ said:


Let me ask you ONE question . . .

• IF perchance NOAHs' ARK arrived today, (RPG) a
• massive SPACE SHIP in the sky . . . Would you, I say again, would you, GET ON BOARD ??????

You said:

A few questions, I would like to discuss with the Christian people here.

 

[calidog]

Hello there, thank you for honouring my thread with your presence!

I have a few questions, which I would like to discuss with the Christian people on this board. And since this is one of the biggest and most active Christian forums in the world, this seems like the perfect place. The questions concern God, His characteristics and existence, Christianity, Ethics, etc.

In the past, some Christians who I presented these questions to have felt offended. I sincerely hope that this is not the case here, and apologise in advance if it is. It is not my intention to insult anyone or attack your religion, I merely search for an in-depth discussion concerning your religion.

Three more things, before we get started. First, I apologise for any spelling- or grammatical errors made in my posts. English is not my first language, since I’m from Holland, and even though I always use the spelling checker some mistakes slip through. Second, I’m not sure whether this thread really belongs in this section. It seems more appropriate for the debate section, but I can’t post it there because I need to post a hundred times elsewhere before that, and I don’t feel like wasting your and my time writing a hundred posts just to make this thread. And third, for your own sake, don’t try to answer all these questions at once. It took me days to think of them and weeks to formulate them properly, so don’t stay up late trying to answer every question. I wouldn’t want to endanger your health.

Ready? Okay then, here we go:

A number of questions, directed towards the Christian people here.


1. The heaviest stone:
Here’s a classic one, to get things going. Some of you have probably heard this one before. God is said to be omnipotent, or all-powerful. Which means that He can do everything He wants. So, can God create a stone that is so heavy that God Himself cannot lift it?

2. The true fruit:
All right. Imagine a man, living all by himself in a fruit garden. This garden has all kinds of fruits, like apples, bananas, oranges, etc. However, this man doesn’t eat the different sorts of fruit. In fact, he only eats one sort of fruits, the bananas. That’s the only fruit he eats, every day, for his entire life. And every time after eating a banana, he says: ”This banana is delicious. I made the right choice, because bananas are the most delicious fruit on the planet. It is the true fruit!”

Now, this man has the full right to say what he says about bananas. But does he know it, when he says that bananas are the true fruit?

2b. Now, let us transfer this analogy to religion. Imagine a religious man, a Christian, who has been a Christian all his life, saying that Christianity is the true religion and should be preferred over all other religions. Now, this man has the full right to say and to believe that. But does he know it?

3. Job’s Problem:
As you all know, there is a lot of suffering in this world. War, hunger, diseases, you name it. Now, when I sometimes ask Christian people why there is suffering in the world, and why the all-loving God doesn’t stop this (since He is omnipotent), some of them say that God is testing us. He is making us suffer to see whether we will stay loyal to Him. They sometimes refer to the story of Job, in which God takes everything from Job (his wife, his children, his land, his health) because Satan challenged Him and wondered whether Job would stay true to Him.
Now, being God, He has a certain right to accept this challenge and let Satan have his wicked way with Job for the sake of His challenge. According to the Christians, He gave us everything, so it isn’t too illogical that He can take it away (although not all Christians will agree with this).
There’s just one little thing that bothers me. God, according to Christians, is
All-knowing. He knows everything about past, present and future. This means that He didn’t have to accept Satan’s challenge, since He already knew Job would choose Him. In fact, there’s no use in testing any of us by suffering at all, because God already knows who will come out of the test, and thus who are the true Christians. So why does He do it anyway?


3b. Some of you might answer that God might already have known that Job would remain faithful to Him, but that Satan didn’t. But then, does that really matter? I mean, destroying an innocent men’s life just to prove that He’s right doesn’t seem like something a benevolent God would do, right?

4. The Dictator:
Once, in a country far, far away, there was a cruel dictator. He had ruled over his little country for decades and made the inhabitants suffer a great deal. One day however, there was uproar in the country, and an angry crowd gathered before the house of the dictator, only to be stopped by his own private army. The people were furious, and they demanded elections. They said that they wanted to have a choice, to express their free will. “Okay”, said the dictator, “As you wish. I will organize elections, and you can freely choose between me and an impartial other candidate. However, if any of you dare not to vote for me, I will put you in the deepest dungeon and torture you horribly!”

Now the dictator gave his people a choice. But is it a free choice? Do the people really have an opportunity to express their free will?

4b. Later that day, the dictator’s ten-year-old son walks up to him, and asks him whether he can have some candy. The dictator nods, opens a drawer, takes out two pieces of chocolate and puts one of them in each hand. The reaches out his hands towards his son and opens them, displaying a piece of white chocolate in the right hand and a piece of brown chocolate in the left hand. The dictator tells his son that he can pick whichever he wants. So the boy picks out the right hand, containing the white piece of chocolate.
However, upon doing this, the dictator becomes furious and gives his son a mighty blow to the side of his head. Crying, the boy asks him why he did that. The dictator answers that he didn’t want him to pick the white piece of chocolate, and that he has the right to punish him because of that. The son disagrees. After all, what’s the use of having a choice when ultimately the decision is forced upon you anyway? According to him, it is not a fair choice.

So who’s right? The dictator, or his son?

4c. Now, if your answer to the last two questions was ‘no’, which seems quite possible, please answer me this;
The Bible says that God gave us free will. He gave us a choice. (In fact, this free choice seems to be the root of all our errors. Homosexuality = free choice. Catching HIV while trying to support your family by selling your body = free choice. Drown in the Tsunami = free choice.) However, if we don’t choose the side of God, we will burn in hell, which probably hurts a lot. And we don’t just go to hell for a short time, but we stay there for all eternity. Now, I agree with you that choosing between heaven and hell is a choice. But is it a free choice? Is it really a free choice anymore than the dictator gave his people or his son a free choice? Or does free choice include the acceptance of whatever choice you make, without adding any negative consequences to it?


4d. Back to the dictator. During the night after the original riots, a small group of angry people is still determined to take care of the dictator. They manage to enter his house, but they can’t make their way past the guards in front of the dictator’s bedroom. So in the end, they decide to kidnap the son of the dictator instead. They take the young boy to their secret headquarters, and once there, they send a message to the dictator, telling him that if he doesn’t end his reign over their people, they will kill the boy. They feel that this if fair, since after all, the boy is the son of the dictator. The boy himself disagrees, arguing that his father’s choices aren’t to blame on him. It wasn’t his will for the people to be suppressed by the dictator.

Suppose that the people kill the boy if the dictator doesn’t stop his reign. Would this be a morally acceptable thing to do?

4e. If your answer to this last question was no, consider what is written in Exodus 12: 29-30. Can God, a being that is supposedly perfect, do something that is morally unacceptable? And if He can’t, doesn’t that raise some questions about His omnipotence, since omnipotence is the ability to do anything?

5 God’s gender:
[sarcasm] Wow, thank you very much for insulting my religion [/sarcasm]. A statement that a Christian girl once made to me for referring to God as a ‘She’. Unfortunately, instead of making me feel sorry, it made me feel curious by raising a couple of questions.


For example, last time I checked God wasn’t made out of matter. No matter means no genitals. No genitals, means that technically one cannot refer to God as a ‘He’. Or at least not forbid anyone else to refer to God as a ‘She’. Right? (If your answer to this question is yes, you can skip questions 5b, 5c and 5d.)

5b. Of course, some of you will respond to this saying that the bible refers to God as a ‘He’. However, the bible was written in a time when men were considered superior to women and dominated them. Women were considered as ‘personal property’. So at the time, if anyone were to refer to a ‘supreme being’, which God was supposed to be, using ‘She’, he wouldn’t have been taken serious for an instant. So people referred to God as ‘He’. But does this really mean that God is a ‘He’? (If your answer to this question is yes, you can skip questions 5c and 5d.)

5c. Another thing. I (and note that I am a male) consider women to be the superior sex. Naturally, this means that I consider men the inferior sex. So far no harm done, at least not to the ladies here. However, here comes the tricky part. If I refer to God as ‘Him’ this means that I consider Him male, or belonging to the inferior sex. Which is downright insulting, considering God is supposed to be a superior being. You see the dilemma. I can’t call God a ‘She’ because Christian people won’t tolerate it, but I also can’t call Him a ‘He’ since that would be insulting Him too. What am I to do?

5d. One last thing. This one is even trickier than the ones before, but I’m asking anyway. I noticed that a lot of the Christians (not all, mind you) are against gay marriage. However, something most of them (at least the Catholic ones) agree on, is that Catholic priests should not be married, since they are ‘married to God’ as the expression goes in many countries. All fine so far. But. God is referred to as a ‘He’. Male. Catholic priests are also male. But if Catholic priests are married to or have a union with God, then this means that a male has married another male. Gay marriage. Right?

6. The good guy:
One day, a fisherman has a heart attack while fishing on the side of a lake, and falls into the water. A stranger on the side of the lake sees the man struggling not to drown, dives into the water and rescues the fisherman. The fisherman thanks the stranger, and asks him why he saved his life, since he was a total stranger to him. Since nobody else was watching him, he could have easily let him drown without having to endanger his life by diving in with him. The stranger answers that he saved the fisherman because he is a Christian, and he believes that good deeds like saving another persons life will get him to heaven.
A year later, the same fisherman has yet another heart attack on the side of the same lake, and hits the water again. Another stranger on the side of the lake sees this, and saves the fisherman like the first stranger did. After catching his breath, the fisherman asks this stranger the same question as he asked the other stranger a year ago, curious whether this is, like the other man, a Christian. This stranger, however, tells the fisherman that he is an atheist, and that he doesn't believe his good deeds will get him to heaven. To him, saving the life of the fisherman and seeing his happiness is enough reward.

Now, out of the two strangers, who had the better motive? The Christian, who saved the fisherman because he wanted to get the reward of going to heaven, or the atheist, who apparently didn’t need a reward that big for saving the fisherman?

1. The heaviest stone:
Here’s a classic one, to get things going. Some of you have probably heard this one before. God is said to be omnipotent, or all-powerful. Which means that He can do everything He wants. So, can God create a stone that is so heavy that God Himself cannot lift it?

Yes, in fact He can creat a cross that is too heavy for Him to carry.