[frookenhauer]

I'm sorry, you've just been beaten by your own free will argument. Beat a hasty retreat, if you want, and its about time because we have thoroughly derailed this thread.

Yeah those pesky aliens...

[Gem Windcaster]

I don't understand you at all. I know you have this obsession with having the last word, but there's no such thing as 'beaten', except that you seem to ignore every other statement I say, which I have to admit is driving me slightly nuts. We clearly have completely different views on what an omniscient being is all about, and specifically what God is all about. No need to annoy me to death by ignoring pretty crucial statements. Really, I kind of expected a better performance from you, debate wise.

[frookenhauer]

Can you hear me from up there? That horse looks a bit high! At the risk of sounding like I want to have the last word every time You still don't have an answer to the the coercion and free will statement. And I'm not about to beat you, I merely stated that you were beaten by your argument, because of the fact you still haven't attempted to answer it. All this is just a way of sidetracking and ducking out from doing so. You can't understand me? Start by trying and you may get some of the way there, I'll give you a hand the rest of the way. Nice chatting to you

[Gem Windcaster]

I already did answer it, in previous posts, and I was trying be honest - not just giving you the answer you wanted to hear (I don't even know what that could be though). If that's not it, then I'm not even sure what question you are referring to.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 20 October 2008 - 08:01 PM

[frookenhauer]

"Your saying he sent the plagues, which is a form of coercion, which will affect free will, because all coercion affects free will, and because he is omnipotent he knew it would fail, yet he did it anyway. Free will? NO. Your argument has just bit dirt. Yum!"

Basically you are saying that god does not want to interfere, because it would affect free will. I'm saying that the plagues affected the free will of the people of Egypt and the threat of hell and the lure of heaven also affects free will. Any application of the classic carrot and stick affects free will. Which is why the free will you are holding on to so tightly is an illusion.

[Gem Windcaster]

We have different definitions of free will. Oh btw, you underestimate me - I don't take lightly to that. Now, try to keep up.

Ehrm, I never said God never interfere (duh!). I said there are limits to the interference as to making people do what he wants. Coercion is one thing - using his omnipotence people would never have a choice to disobey in the first place. Seeing as the people of Egypt didn't do what God wished proves my point.

But to humor you, here's the rest of the story: Free will applicable to humans is not about doing whatever you want without suffering the consequences - it's not the sort of free will I'm talking about. In this universe, God is the only one with a complete free will (the way you define it - I guess there's really two different concepts of free will here, both legit imo) Us humans are always limited by something. To encompass one aspect, and disregard the other, as you do, is illogical.

See God as a force of nature - if you put your hand in fire, it will burn - would you then whine and say that you don't have free will? You chose to put the hand in the fire, and a burnt hand is the consequence.

God is continually teaching us that our choices have consequences - with free will comes the rather unpleasant concept of dealing with the consequences. Of taking full responsibility of who we are and what we do. Otherwise it wouldn't be free will.

I'd imagine you would want God to scare us into not put our hands into the fire - a booming voice - do not put the hand into the fire! Well, he could just stop the fire, or freeze our bodies so we didn't get hurt. But that's not the deal. The deal is we have free will - we choose ourselves to put our hands in the fire. Free will is not, for God, just about letting us choose to put our hands in the fire, but, for God, this also means to let us take the consequences - if he saved us from ourselves, then our free will wouldn't be so free after all. Taking away a hand from the fire is what you do with children, not adults with free will.

I don't know why God does what he does, or the processes behind it, and I think there's nothing wrong with asking why - but it's rather foolish to think we can keep up intellectually with an omnipotent being - we simply don't have enough knowledge of ourselves and the universe to criticize him.

To God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day - he has a different perspective than us, and he knows everything that has happened and that will happen. I can't even imagine what that kind of perspective would change the way one would think - how does one even operative in such an existence? God has counted every hair on our heads. Does he think in terms of what decision hurts least humans? Can he even afford that, considering he created all of us? I can't even begin to understand the though processes needed.

I just imagine he has a fuller, more complete picture, and like the fire, he has a certain nature. Like any other force of this universe (that He has created btw) we have to follow the rules of. He is what he is, and cannot be anything else.

You think I am arrogant? I think you need to take a look in the mirror, mate.

Edit: I made some edits, you might wanna read this again.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 20 October 2008 - 10:15 PM

[frookenhauer]

So, its not actually free will then? Just free will within the limits set up by god for us. We can step out of those free will limits, but if we do so we get burnt by the hellfire. Like you say our perceptions of free will are different. Like Osric says "I'd like to listen to god, if he'd just take this gun away from my head." (Ad lib)

As to the completely horrible stuff he did to the Egyptians, they let Jewish people go in the end, and at a guess the whole affair sent the Pharoah over the edge into madness and that is why he chased them down through the red sea. But your God being Omnipotent knew it was going to happen that way, he could have used his majestic brilliance and come up with a better plan that would mean minimal involvement and maximum gain, but he didn't because it was more fun to send the plagues? Why not work out a plan that would improve the whole situation instead of just freeing the slaves and punishing the overlords? Instead of all this plague and suffering why not put some effort into converting the then most advanced civilization on Earth? It would have been worth it and it would definitely have been a better way. A huge misuse of omnipotence and a wasted opportunity. And also during the plagues and the pestilence and famine and whatnot the slaves would have died first, why feed the slaves?

Putting my hand in the fire would burn it, most kids at some point has a brief encounter with fire, an experience with it, something to remember it by. And so we learn, and yet what experience do we get from god in all his glory? I'm sorry, I need to be slightly singed by the godfire, just so I can experience it and therefore not have to rely on the words of a bunch of guys who wrote something down too long ago for it to be cataloged properly, verified and accounted for.

I do criticise the stories of gods actions in the bible because I find his actions in both the flood and Egypt to be downright nasty. I hate the flood more than the Egypt fiasco, however, and if someone handed me some omnipotence I'd haul up god in a celestial court and ask him why he really thought it necessary to commit mass murder on such a scale that only Hitler would step forward and give him a standing ovation. Does your belief prevent you from seeing how despicable an action this is?

Why on Earth would god need to count the hairs on my head? He already knows the answer, its in his Omnipedia

[Gem Windcaster]

You still ignore the fact that free will means we actually choose?

You'd think that we'd listen to an omnipotent creature - but history shows otherwise, friend. And the deal with God protecting us in the way you describe went away with the fall of man (back with an upgraded version with Christ). Besides, I don't think I'd want to give up free will - I think willingly coming to God, and understand what he is is much better than just blindly being encased in cuddly care.

And the Egyptians did NOT let the Jews go! For the last time! I think God gave them enough chances - you're just blind to it, or refuse to acknowledge the fact. Converting?!!! LOL Frook, that's what Christ is all about. But we have to choose it - no mind control is acceptable here.

And I'd love to see you try to press charges against God.

Also, you should know, that when you insult God, you insult me - I am guessing you already know that, please stop hitting me with arguments just meant to anger me. It doesn't come across as very smart.


As for the hair counting, it's just a paraphrase of the omnipedia you were talking about.


Edit: as for the nastiness of what God does, I don't need or even want to down play them in any way. In a way they were nasty. But I count all the wonderful things God does in the Bible aswell. Besides, God is just, and that is why I can read those stories and not be disgusted - I believe God is just.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 20 October 2008 - 11:30 PM

[frookenhauer]

And the answer to the last question is yes, your belief does prevent you from seeing how the flood is the thoroughly despicable action that it so obviously is.

I just looked up the whole affair in Egypt and there were ten plagues and the Pharoah eventually capitulated, still reckon the hypothetical pharoah went over the edge. They must have dumbed it down for us in Religious Education and softened it up, my bad.

Jesus came way way after Moses and why not try to convert the Egyptians? Is it just so the story could be more applicable to the people that live today?

If you look carefully you may well see that I stated that our perceptions for free will are different.

And no, history does not show otherwise, the bible shows otherwise and I would argue that the bible is not the history of mankind.

To be honest I'd rather the proverbial hellfire than bask in the everlasting glory of the god that can wipe the slate clean on a whim.

[Gem Windcaster]

Well, yes we see these things very differently.

Had I not experience Gods love so deeply, hadn't Christ showed exactly what God is about, I probably would have agreed with you. Sin does that to a person.

But here we are, convinced it's the other person that is blind to the truth.

Every statement you say about God, I disagree with. There's nothing about God that is based on a whim - on the contrary, everything he does, he does for love.

The 'nastiness' , as you call it, is the excuse you use to refuse God. You don't want anything to do with him, and you go looking for things to blame on God. The truth is, we all have a choice, for better and for worse, that's how things are.

But you don't want to accept that, you can't accept that those Egyptians had a choice, that you have a choice. I don't know how God does is, how he creates this ability to make our own decisions, even when he creates us, even when he knows where it will lead. But since he's omniscient, everything is possible for him.

Humanity made a choice, but we can make a choice personally too. God gave us our choice back. If the only omniscient being in the universe asks me to be his friend, his family, I won't say no, I can't.

if I have to accept that the world sucks, that we made it this way, if I have to accept that God turned away because he had to, because of the choices humanity made, to say yes, then so be it.

The bible says we get everything with him. Christ is the outstretched hand, to the Egyptians, to every killer, every horrible man and woman, even Hitler. With a single act of complete love, he shames your accusations and your hate. Because in the moment that Christ died on the cross, he took on himself everything that the Egyptians did, every bad choice, every atrocity that has ever happened and that ever will happen.

Christ includes everyone - because God would accept nothing less with the sacrifice of his own son. You don't think that God's love is bigger than any of our earthly problems? If he would say that the world is flat, then it would be flat.

So you see, the 'nastiness', that you talk about, is of little consequence - through Christ. But only through Christ. Which is your problem, sorry to say it.

---
Man, I didn't see that one coming. Did you?

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 21 October 2008 - 01:00 AM

[frookenhauer]

Nope. I do not refuse god because of the nastiness. I refuse the bible itself and am merely pointing out some of the things inside it that are nasty, and nasty to have been made by man were he given the power of god as interpreted by the people of those times. A modern day version of the plague would possible be a unstoppable virus that would set the world back to 0 in terms of computing. Or meteor showers, or a massive solar flare. I do not refuse the possibility of god, just the one inside the biible.

As for the whole sacrifice with Jesus on the cross. Jesus is the ultimate believer. He knows he is going to heaven and become the top man. How does a few moments of pain compare to the absolute knowledge of a top position in the glory everlasting? And in terms of the sacrifice god made, its no sacrifice at all because he knows that life is merely a fleeting blink of the eye in terms of heavens wonders and after the cross he can have Jesus dining on loaves and fishes behind the comfort of the pearly gates. So how does that fit into the whole picture? Its no sacrifice at all.

So you admit that some of it is nasty? (Prior post) but you are more than happy to reconcile that because of all the good stuff. Does that not kind of put a damper on the whole perfection idea?

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

I personally think that God in his omnipotence realized that the individual doesn't really matter long before the Roman-Catholic church and the Nazis - so we have free will although few of us actually change anything. And if for those few there's an actual predestination much like a script of their whole life - they certainly never become aware of it - so what's the difference.

And how often are we not in control of even the most trivial things in life. We're constantly tossed and turned by chance in one direction or another and we don't seem to mind that as long as the big picture is still in sight. And the big picture itself is in a way 'predestined' by career expectations or your parents area of interest if you choose to follow that.

Is that not a loss of free will in itself?

In conclusion if we never had free will by some God's manipulation we can never really tell. That is if you grow to be an ingenious scientist and still throw yourself off a cliff on a whim one day the world won't glitch on a huge red ERROR message. You might say God would be indigenous enough to replace you with somebody else in His plans.

And all will be well with the world forever and ever.

Quote

A modern day version of the plague would possible be a unstoppable virus that would set the world back to 0 in terms of computing. Or meteor showers, or a massive solar flare. I do not refuse the possibility of god, just the one inside the biible.

As for the whole sacrifice with Jesus on the cross. Jesus is the ultimate believer. He knows he is going to heaven and become the top man. How does a few moments of pain compare to the absolute knowledge of a top position in the glory everlasting?

You are again taking the Bible very very literary without regard for the meaning of the words but merely for the functionality or the practicality of the book. First of all you equate the murder of most if not all the city's children to us loosing the internet - the plagues weren't simply a matter of financial crisis - they were a very personal crisis for each and every family that lost a loved one. Shame on you for that one .

And then you treat the scripture like a dated medical journal that needs updating simply for the sake of pointless factuality. Did God somehow drop out of fashion with the begining of the tech-age? Are you saying the big bearded man somehow is too old for us? Does it matter what he even looks like or if it's a He or a She or perhaps neither?

As far as Jesus on the Cross have you though that perhaps there was no greater sacrifice than being strained on a cross for days and butchered like an animal stuck with spears and all that - at that time? And it worked for those people, why doesn't it work for us - because we're used to watching horror flicks? Jesus was certainly not a smock bastard pulling off a con and laughing to himself while they were beating him almost to within an inch of his life. He is also portrayed as an ordinary human being safe for a few moments of wonder - for the most part he has his doubts he's somewhat reluctant to why he was chosen of all people. So why can't he be allowed to suffer for the loss of his mortal life.

That is unless you see eternity in the same trivial and straightforward fashion as you see everything else in the Bible - as a cure for death - when it is life after death and perhaps much different than ours.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 21 October 2008 - 06:32 AM

[frookenhauer]

I'm sorry, according to the bible its the individual that is important and not the society, and more importantly, the soul of the individual. Its all about you.

My plagues are in the order of damage. the computing crash would bring the world to its knees as everything from the government on down would grind to a halt. this may lead to starvation and rioting and god knows what else.
An impressive meteor shower might affect loads of people depending on how much and over where it lands. Oops my bad, lets call it a meteorite storm shall we?
The massive solar flare could wipe out life on half the planet and maybe more depending on how big it is.

My argument is not really on the relative importance of the plagues themselves, just a method to highlight the fact that the plagues described are just the worst type of thing the authors could think of with their limited knowledge at the time and I was comparing and contrasting what a modern day author would possibly put forward.

With regards to the bible I have merely picked two stories out of it and put them under my own little spotlight and have found them wanting. In terms of ethics and in terms of the results, I think both the flood and the treatment of the Egyptians to have been despicable. A better way could have been found. It was a misuse of Omnipotence. And also highlights to me that If an ever loving omnipotent being exists, then he would surely not do those terrible things and this would always inevitably lead to me wondering whether the scripture was in fact truth.

And with the Jesus incident, you're saying its the ultimate sacrifice for a man to be crucified? I completely agree, but Jesus is no ordinary man (according to the Bible) he is the son of God. I mean if I had the power to heal with a touch, make loaves and fishes enough to feed a city, resurrect myself afterwards and ready to take my place in the heavens as the prince of the universe(s), I think I might manage to bear up under the strain. Again, its no sacrifice at all.

This post has been edited by frookenhauer: 21 October 2008 - 12:49 PM

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

If you had the power to help yourself through the pain of crucifiction but also the wisdom and knowledge that you'll be forever remembered by the sheer amount of pain that you experienced - would you really help yourself through it or would you cherish every moment of it for the sake of the idea you're putting through.

Because Christianity no matter how twisted it may be by the power-lust of the Roman Catholic church is still the most human-loving teaching of all - it tells you to sacrifice yourself and ignore your own ego to the point of total absurdity.

That's the whole point Nietzsche is trying to put through - rather than constantly anaesthetizing itself(yourself) through life a strong ever-searching spirit - weather it be a human or a godly one - would strive to bring upon itself the greatest pain and suffering this world can offer. And that is the ultimate expression of power and wisdom. It's not about going around obstacles just because you can but instead it's about plowing through them because you believe in your own ability and potential.

Jesus willingly put himself through the greatest pain and suffering humanity could endure. He endured in this order - first doubt and self-questioning about weather he was worthy to be God's son - then betrayal - he was betrayed by the one student of his that he loved the most - then injustice when he was sentenced to death for no crime - then the physical pain itself. That is because he knew that a God that didn't understand what suffering truly meant was a harsh and unjust one - much like God in the Old Testament - if you notice the change - there's a huge switch in God's image in the New Testament - suddenly He's the all loving all helping - the giver of hope - and that is all thanks to Jesus's sacrifice.

Jesus brought pity and forgiveness to Christianity in terms of God's attitude towards people. Before that God would punish anyone who wouldn't obey His orders. After that at some point God was made aware of the true meaning of pain and suffering and that was the turning point for a whole new era.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 21 October 2008 - 06:09 PM

[frookenhauer]

Its not everyday that you see someone use the ideas of a man who would kill God, in the defense of the symbol that unites all the branches of Christianity. In his grave, I'm sure his mouth is moving slowly and a careful lipreader will be able to make out the word "Bollocks". I think your interpretation of Nietzsche (that's a bugger to spell) may be slightly wide of the mark, but I applaud your application purely for its audacity *claps*

To paraphrase gem "I would not know what went through Jesus' mind during the torture, but I do know what I would be thinking of if I were in his place. The song would be as follows:

Spoiler

"I'm going to go to heaven, spears and crowns may break my skin, but its atop a throne when next you see me." "How am I doing god?", "Just fine son, ham it up for me a little", "I forgive you, torturer! I forgive you Judas!" , "That's my boy...". Hey presto Christianity is begun.

On a more serious note, I'd just tune it out.

But really what you've just done is create this nice construct, and it is very pretty, around the principle that the sacrifice had any meaning in itself, but because of the very nature of Jesus as Gods son and his subsequent elevation it is rendered obsolete. Tell you what, if god had sent his son down to hell to be tortured for our sins, that would be a sacrifice and I'd sit up straighter in my chair.

The reason why the whole image of God is changes in the new testament is purely because there is a completely new set of people writing it. Old testament (Torah): The vengeful Jewish god that continued to smite the hateful enemies of the children of Noah (even though every one on Earth at the time happened to be a child of Noah, and that includes those pesky Egyptians) The only thing keeping them plodding on is the fact that no matter what they do, god will smite all who fuck with them. The new testament is written by the followers of Jesus who only began writing the new testament 50 years after his death, enough time for the legend to grow, I mean I once ate a loaf and fish this big *arms spread wide*.

And why would and omnipotent being need to be made aware of what suffering and sacrifice and pain is all about? He's got his Omnipedia to consult. I wish people would stop putting limits on omnipotence, I really do .

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Well, whatever if you want to believe in the great scam of Christianity there's apparently nothing I can do about it. If you want to look at omnipotence as a source of laughs and giggles on a Saturday night Jesus Mary and God sitting on a couch watching a movie with God threatening them that he's gonna give up the plot if they don't bring him another beer, that's fine.

Your interpretation of the Bible is as I said before purely scientific and you don't even try to see some meaning in it other than the mechanic of omnipotence (which you vigorously defend as if it were a base law of physics) or some other vaguely relevant fact. The Gospels all those endless writings are if nothing else a nice story presenting how people 2000 years ago saw the world with their highs and lows their limited knowledge, with their hopes and dreams. And if their dream was to have a good meal of fish and bread every once and a while which of you 21st century people who claim to be involved in this world's problems would be the first to say that dream is despicable.

And that is the whole purpose of religion in the 21st century - that everybody should put meaning in it for ourselves. Make it a part of our own lives rather than dissect it and then what? Will you be happy if you finally understood religion in terms of logic? Hell no you'll leave it there on a shelf gutted out and all the bits and pieces neatly labeled and organized in sections. Here's Jesus turning water into wine - he used cosmic rays and the power of love to do it!

Lastly I'm bringing Nietzsche into the conversation because for what I understand of his writing he probably would never had had a problem with Christianity has it not been for missinterpritations of it by the Roman Catholic church. Nietzsche personally created a new religion in Zaratustra based on individualistic values and self-betterment. So who is to say that can't be implemented into Christianity on a personal level. Who said that being a decent human being contradicts to being a strong well-adjusted one. Sure the latter contradicts to being an obedient lamb in Jesus's flock but seriously - look at yourselves - has anybody ever forced you to anything religion-wise?

***

Quote

Tell you what, if god had sent his son down to hell to be tortured for our sins, that would be a sacrifice and I'd sit up straighter in my chair.

How do you constantly apply such scientific less than unimaginative thinking to religion and still are able to make reference to pure mysticism such as the idea of Hell. Hell is merely a metaphor for as far as the living are concerned - the crucifiction was out there for all to see.

You're still looking for some pulp fiction-like mechanism to find a logical reason for you to believe. Like if God had willingly gave His son to Satan and Satan of course would torture Jesus for all eternity without any hope whatsoever - no last minute escape no back up plans no resurrection no nothing. A God that symbolises eternal pain and suffering - you see what you did there? You traded all the morals of Jesus crucifiction for the personal security that he actually experienced pain.

But hey if for all you see in Christianity it's a huge scam - then I certainly can't help you.

PP: Yeah, Nietzsche is a bugger to spell... :roll:

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 22 October 2008 - 07:52 AM

[frookenhauer]

Nietzsche and his problem with Christianity is a bit more subtle than what you have put forward, his problem lies with the slave mentality the religion promotes: lets all make preparation for the ever after, it prevents people from seizing the day and living each one as if it may well be the last (mind you I find other ways of ignoring this, but thats beside the point). "This life is but a test." Ring a bell? This statement is the one that all his arguments fight against. This is the bleaching agent that is poured into the ears of believers the world over. Amen.

In terms of the Jesus incident, you may be correct, but my point is thus: Jesus died for our sins. If we sin we go to hell. Jesus goes to hell for our sins. Do you see? I was actually going to bring him back for the day of judgement, but if you want to keep him there to serve your purposes, that's cool. But my argument was just a response to everyone saying ooh look its such a big sacrifice, and all I'm saying is: It is, but not if we're talking about Jesus.

BTW I like what you did in Gods living room, LoL. Keep guessing about why I'm using omnipotence the way I am, but so far you're wide of the mark. So are you saying the stories in the bible aren't real? They are just a bunch of fables designed purely to light our way in the path of life? I think Gem would disagree with you there. The bible is gospel and that is it

I would also ask that you give Zarathustra a reread, it is not a religion in itself, but a way of criticising Christianity in its ability to limit the human spirit and prevent our eventual transformation into uber dudes once we have fully grasped the will to power. I'm not sure I am fully enamoured with that idea, but I plan on doing more reading in that area when I grow up a bit more.

[Gem Windcaster]

Frook, you're welcome to believe and think whatever you want, but you should keep down the insults, you might not get an equally kind response from someone else.

frookenhauer, on Oct 21 2008, 02:48 AM, said:

So you admit that some of it is nasty? (Prior post) but you are more than happy to reconcile that because of all the good stuff. Does that not kind of put a damper on the whole perfection idea?

I am saying that you can't blame the nastiness on God, if there is any. God has proven (imo), that if we only say the word, he'll save us - that's what Christ is about. But we have to say the word first. And to do that we have to believe that God actually can and want do what he says he will do, that he actually forgive our previous choices. He cannot help you unless you give him some trust first.

Pretty much any allegation against what is done in the bible is answered by Christ. As for the pain: it wasn't any normal pain, Frook, and wasn't not at all as you picture it. He might have been the son of God, but he was just as much a human as we are. He obeyed his father - it doesn't say that he knew exactly what was going to happen - he even sweated blood at one point - but he trusted his father and did it because he loved us all. Then he took all sin on himself - which made his body give up much sooner than it did for the rest of the people hanging with him on the cross (the killing technique were supposed to take much longer).

I realize we have vastly different views of the world and ourselves in relation to the world. That's fine, however sad I might feel over it.

Thankyou Frook, for discussing with me, but I think that when the opponent calls you a nazi, it's time to end it.

I don't know where you got all the 'knowledge' you have about Christian faith, but it's so vastly different that any idea you are having, or might have, is almost 100% sure to be not what I believe.

If you sort of had some understanding what I believe, or you agree on some points of view, then this discussion would be interesting. As it is now, I have to refute every statement you post, because it's so completely different from my own views. I can hardly agree with anything you say. It's not fun anymore, and I don't see the point of the 'debate'.

When we started this I said I love a challenge, and that is true, but we're on different planets right now, and need to invent space travel to get to each other. Cheers for a good try though!


Exeunt Gem.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 22 October 2008 - 10:08 PM

[frookenhauer]

Ah me, the bridge we built between the islands that sail in space were made of mere kindling, a harsh word, a spark becomes flame and the bridge becomes ash...shoulda used bricks and mortar, bit less prone to going up in smoke, do ya know what I mean?

Never called you a Nazi and never insulted you, not even once. (Apart from that high horse comment, but that was mostly a fair assessment considering the circumstances)

And anyway, we moved past that particular affair and the discussion had moved forward. If you want to use it as a pretext for backing off, that's fine, no matter how much it saddens me

This whole argument was never about winning or losing, but was essentially a way of getting to know more about the whole religion ideal and its background and unfortunately it is not as robust as it should be, its adherents do not actually know some of the more important answers and the actual text itself cannot stand on its own under scrutiny.

I would like to a tell you a story about a man named Godefroy. Godefroy had ten kids and he loved them all. They were naughty kids. All of them except Norbert. Godefroy tried and tried to get them to listen to him, he gave them gifts he, he tried everything but they would not listen. In despair he drowned 9 of his children and kept Norbert, because Norbert listened to him. Godefroy is pretty fucked up, aint he?

No? Then I guess we are on different planets.

Its been a pleasure Gem

[Darkwatch]

Gem Windcaster, on Oct 19 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

The reason God has to work through people is because humanity don't listen - people stopped listening after the fall of man - it's the whole point!

Oh we weren't listening before hand anyway, or else we wouldn't have fallen. Which just comes back to free will and everything that goes with it.

Which of course has nothing to do with the subject.

This is about extra-terrestrials showing up and syaing "Hello."

To answer the original question:

No it won't, it will just do what has always happened when new information is recieved cause debate, which may or may not lead to schisms.

You'll have some wierd hardcore crowd saying that following Genenis, Man was the ultimate goal of creation, the only sentient mortal life in the universe, and the only life in the universe with souls that can be redeemed, other than God himself. Thus the Aliens would be aberrations unto god.

Others will say that it's proof that god exists (if they're similar to us in someway).

Others will say they must be angels.

Others won't care.