- Forums in Australia for all people & subjects - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 Christianity - Christian
 Christian Complaints

Note: You must be registered and logged in, in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

UserName: You must enter a valid Username - or your post will be lost
Password: You must enter a valid Password - or your post will be lost
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List

* Forum Code is ON
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

Check here to subscribe to this topic.

T O P I C    R E V I E W
rodgertutt Posted - 23 Apr 2009 : 00:21:45

The world’s most evil beliefs & the most important issue
The eternal torment theology of the Arminian Christian relies on so-called “free will” and luck.

The god that Arminian Christian eternal tormentors profess to love says to his fallen creatures

“Unless you are lucky enough to find out about my son during this lifetime, and even if you are that lucky, if you don’t have the good sense to cooperate with my son properly before you die, then I am going to raise you from the dead and I will sustain you alive in an inescapable state of eternal torment forever.”

The eternal torment theology of the Calvinist Christian relies on God alone, not “free will” at all. It is summed up by the word TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and the Perseverance of the elect.

The god that Calvinistic Christian eternal tormentors profess to love says to his fallen creatures

"I created most of you for the purpose of torturing you forever. However, I am going to choose a few of you undeserving ones to go to heaven where you will be happy forever." John Calvin said there will be infants a span long in hell because they were not among the elect. (A span is the distance between the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger.)

And then both the Arminian and Calvinistic eternal tormentors say that the feelings that they have for this god of theirs is “love.”

Without God’s sustaining power everyone would cease to exist. So if anyone were to suffer forever, our all-powerful God (Who is Love in essence, not just loving) would be fully 100% responsible for it. We would have to conclude that any definition of the manifestation of “love-in-essence” includes eternally sustaining people alive in an inescapable state of suffering.

What a travesty; what a revolting definition of love it is that God, Who is love personified, would grant any creature a will so strong that they can choose themselves into an irreversible state of never ending suffering (Arminian) or deserve to suffer forever just by being born into the human race (Calvinist)!!

Thank God the Bible does not teach such insane ideas!

Copy and paste one of the following titles into Google

Anyone is welcome to believe anything they want to about what the Bible teaches.

I'm just so glad I learned about the following information.
It enabled me to recover from a twelve year nervous breakdown 1966-78.
I'm 70 now.
I, and many others with whom I have become acquainted, simply could not successfully emotionally cope with the idea that God would let anyone suffer forever. Here is the testimony of Charles Slagle who went insane for the same reasons that I did.
Copy and paste the following title into Google

Eternal Torment Calvinism, Eternal Torment Arminianism, Annihilation, or Christian Biblical Universalism.

Which one of the four is the truth?

This debate nearly always ends with the words, "My Greek scholars are more reliable
than your Greek scholars," and the result is a stalemate.

If readers think it glorifies God more to believe that He is going to let some of His
creatures suffer forever or annihilate them, then they should keep believing that.
But if they think it glorifies God more to eventually meet everyone on the level of their
greatest and deepest need, which is a change in their stubborn will
, then I would like
them to know that that is exactly what the Bible teaches that God is like.


The findings of Greek scholar Louis Abbott and the other Greek scholars quoted in
chapters three and twelve of his online book IMHO renders all other arguments irrelevant.

IMHO these findings effectively close the case on the arguments that eternal tormentors try so hard to uphold.
But of course one has to actually read them to see what I mean.

Just Google up AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF WORDS and enjoy, or click on

• Eternal Death Annihilation
• Bible Threatenings Explained
• Universal Salvation University
41   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
kevtherev Posted - 29 Jul 2009 : 21:03:51
WE have moved over to the new area on this subject here --> I just posted this in case you couldnt find us - and your subscription will email you Fadi.
kevtherev Posted - 27 Jul 2009 : 11:25:10
Yes I too - have been busy actually the busiest 2 weeks since the economy collapsed - I suppose that is a good sign - for recovery.

This is a very interesting topic, if we are to assess this question as per the facts, and of course rationally theorise, whilst being open to the truth that may, be beyond our current belief system, then we should break down this huge nagging question into bite size pieces and truly study to find the truth through factual evidence.

Would you agree with this Davo and Fadi?

I propose using a methodolgy similar to the 8 rules of interpretation as in the article here --> these rules so I am told were put together by university scholars for the purpose of finding truth - they are fair and not to religous, i hope for you Davo.

I propose we start a new topic called "how did we come to be" or you 2 could maybe word it better - this way we can break it down in threads of thought and then we can test them individually.

I will start by copying these last 3 posts to the topic here -->
davo Posted - 27 Jul 2009 : 10:49:36
Yep sorry real life has got in the way.

With regards what happened 'way back when', I am not a quantum scientist, but there are a number of theories, which cover such things as singularities and bubble universes, fractal universes etc etc .. but the simple answer is we don't know yet. However our understanding of such things are expanding massively every day. Gaps in our knowledge, the domain of gods, is shrinking along with it.

BUT, to say that the universe had to have a creator, that the universe is so complex as it needs a creator that is more complex, by definition, leaves that leap needing the same requirements. My answer is that the universe does not need a creator anymore than a god does, and that there is plenty of evidence for the universe, but none for a god, other than that written by man.

When we look at things like evolution (related to not HOW life started, which is abiogenesis, but how life gets more complex), and the expanding universe (the terminology of 'the big bang' is a wording given a theory on expansion, by an opponent of the theory and it stuck, the theory is not regarding a 'bang' but about the sudden expansion of time and space), we see more complex things come from simpler things, via very clear process. This is not 'random'.

My question to you, would be, if god does not need a creator, why does the universe?

Fadi Posted - 25 Jul 2009 : 22:52:01
Ok, let me break the ice here since all have gone into some kind of hibernation or have given up their right to speak. Before I answer any of the points raised by you Davo; I’m asking you for some clarification on your stand as an atheist as to the last point you’ve touched on. By that I’d like you to tell me what you as an atheist believe was the cause of all that exists. I fully understand your last answer re the design issue. What I’m after now is for your understanding of what happened way back then. In other words, according to you, how did it all begin? There are many points I’d like to raise/answer here but again, I will reserve my answer until I hear yours. Thank you.
Fadi Posted - 06 Jul 2009 : 19:23:57
As you wish. It's good to know you're alright though.

davo Posted - 06 Jul 2009 : 14:02:49
No need to worry about me, I am quite alright, just been rather busy at work!

Fadi Posted - 06 Jul 2009 : 13:54:50
Davo, brother I’m worried about you. Is everything alright? I haven’t heard from you and you just left abruptly. Did I say something to hurt your feelings? Let me know if I did please.

Fadi Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 04:51:39
Salam Davo,

I will reserve my comments until you complete yours. Take care brother.

Ps: I don’t believe I have misinterpreted your sayings Davo; misunderstood yes, but not misinterpreted. There’s a huge difference, (especially if done intentionally).

I’ve edited by adding the last two sentences.

Fadi Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 04:42:10
Salam Kevin,

Your wisdom and praise have shone and penetrated through your words straight to my heart. I salute you Sir, and ask the All Merciful to bless your soul and grant you contentment in this life and the hereafter. Amen.

Salam means "Peace". It's like saying 'Hi!' (With a much more profound meaning of course) - It is the most shortened version of the Islamic greeting (Assalamu Alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh) and originates from the Hebrew greeting 'Shalom'. The full meaning of the whole greeting is: “May the peace, mercy and blessings of God be upon you.”

The origin of this saying began when prophet Adam (PBUH) went and greeted the angels, (after he was created). They replied saying: "Peace be upon you and the mercy and blessings of God." God said: "O Adam! This is your greeting and that of your offspring." (Sahih Bukhari).

According to the gospel of John 20:21, Jesus (PBUH) said to them again, "Peace be with you. Just as the Father has sent me, so I am sending you." This greeting phrase in Arabic translates into “Assalamu Alaikum”.

So in reality, I find common grounds between me and my Christian brothers and sisters, and I find myself imitating the saying of that wonderful and mighty messenger of God, Jesus the Christ (PBUH).

Whether you are an Arab, Australian, or an Eskimo Muslim, the greeting is always the same. Another aspect to this peaceful greeting is...well peace itself. It’s impossible to wish someone peace when you have an atom’s weight or less of a malice intention within your heart towards them; hence my greeting of peace to you Kevin.

Now I was only meant to write the first paragraph. See how your words inspired me Sir; we will both be rewarded for our gracious reciprocations towards each other now, (God Willing).

I had to make an edit due to forgetting to place (Peace Be Upon Him) after Jesus's name. Sorry about that.

davo Posted - 01 Jul 2009 : 12:16:57
I will repond in more depth as I get a chance (I am at work), but I must respond Fadi with regard your misinterpretation of what I was saying with regard :


And you are absolutely correct when you further made the statement that this complex design (the universe, us, etc), must have a more complex designer. That is so very true and very logical.

My point was not that this complex design begs a designer, it was just the opposite. It was pointing out, that if, as specifically apologists state, that the universe is so complex, therefore there must be a designer (god), then that just passes on the same problem another level .. it means god, which is more complex, by the same logic, must have a designer, thus on and on ad infinitum. At one point many religious folk will state their MUST be a designer of something, because it is so complex, and state that this thing, doesn't need one. If god does not need a designer, why does the universe?

I appreciate your link and will read it in depth.

thanks both of you for your input, and dealing with the way I ask questions, your replies make me think, and that is a good thing :) Thanks Kevin for that clarification, I will again read the passages.
Kevin Posted - 01 Jul 2009 : 12:06:34
Originally posted by a380
I’ve got a feeling that my presence here is causing Kevin more headaches than he needs really, (in the sense of having to diverge to me). Here am I speaking from an Islamic point of view, whilst he’s speaking from a Christian one. [quote]
Hi Fadi,
No my friend, your haven't been giving me any headaches lol. You are a gentleman and I enjoy reading what you have to contribute on this forum- your posts are very informative and interesting.

Reading your views and beliefs and feelings on these topics... I take notice of!, as I don't often have communication with a person of your faith... occasionally I peruse the Quran ( online ).

Your presence on this forum -I'm sure is welcomed by everyone and you've conducted yourself admirably. ( we could all learn from you )!


Fadi Posted - 01 Jul 2009 : 08:07:52
Thank you for your reply Davo, I received it loud and clear. We can go on exchanging 100 posts to no avail. That is not my purpose. As a Muslim, my job is to deliver the message and insure that you’re aware of a book called the Qur’an. As the Qur’an puts it: Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance (16:125).

I feel from reading your posts, that you don't like circular arguments; would not asking the question of who created the uncreated fall within that category Sir? Being uncreated is one of His attributes, that’s what makes God…well God! Beyond that, it's by faith, irrespective whether you're looking at Christianity, Islam, or whatever else... The reason I say that is because when Kevin was pointing to a wrist watch as something that had to have a designer behind it, you answered by saying that you could at least speak, see, and hear that / those designers. With God; where is he or who made him? You asked.

And you are absolutely correct when you further made the statement that this complex design (the universe, us, etc), must have a more complex designer. That is so very true and very logical. The only issue with that Designer is that He wants you and me to believe in Him without seeing Him, but rather by following His message which began at the time of Adam and culminated (according to Muslims), at the advent of prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Muslims do not claim a monopoly of the truth. That is to say that the truth is found here in the Qur’an and no where else. How can I say that when the holy book which I believe in clearly informs me of previous revelations from God? That is why when I was searching for the truth, (in a similar way to what you are doing now); I did not have to look too far, since only three faiths claim to have received Devine revelations: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I’m not really interested in man made philosophies. No philosopher ever became famous by repeating what a previous philosopher has said before him. The philosophy of man is ever changing. So which divine message if everyone is claiming to have the “right” message you ask? That’s where no one can help Davo except Davo. I would personally accept truth wherever truth is found and when it’s logical. Faith without reason is not how I came to believe. Faith without reason can not have but a very shaky foundation at its base.
In Islam we believe strongly that each and every human (including your intelligent self), has an inclination to find God. Like a compass needle striving towards the north. Some call it the innate nature that is within all of us. That innate nature is (we believe) is what is making you and every searcher of the truth…search! It’s like a thirst that can only be quenched by water, this human nature (call it what you will Davo), can only “rest” when it has settled on a belief. We call that “deen”. There’s no English word that can capture the meaning of deen. Some translate it as religion; a set of dos and don’ts. Its proper meaning is “a complete way of life.” That’s the “religion” I believe in.

I’m not a judgmental person Davo and don’t really like people who are. I must say, I’m very proud of the work you’re doing (by helping the needy), it shows that you have a heart of gold brother, it really does. I have stated on this forum before, that the main purpose of our existence on this earth (according to the Qur’an), is to worship God. Not in the narrow sense that is usually understood by the masses, but rather worship in the comprehensive sense of the word. That is to say, the best in the sight of God is the one who has faith and is best in conduct. And we all know how easy it is to be on the pinnacle of behaviour when you are dealing with people who agree with everything you say; there’s a zero test of character here. The test of character through conduct is when that conduct is taking place with people who do NOT agree with what you have to say or do and vice versa.

By the way, my name is Fadi. The forum would not accept my real name for some reason, hence the a380. Fadi is a very Christian name; a Lebanese Christian name that was given by the church. It means redeemer. Referring to that mighty messenger and prophet of God, Jesus the son of the blessed virgin Mary, (peace be upon them both). It’s only four letters, but it’s meaning to both Christians and Muslims is great (for different reasons).

I think people here in Australia are more humanists than atheists. However the younger generation in my opinion, tend to lean more towards hedonism.

I’ve got a feeling that my presence here is causing Kevin more headaches than he needs really, (in the sense of having to diverge to me). Here am I speaking from an Islamic point of view, whilst he’s speaking from a Christian one. I truly respect your patience with me Kevin and high manners for not complaining, I really mean that brother. So I think I’ll step out now and watch the communication between you two fine gentlemen unfolds.

Peace be onto you both brothers.

PS: Davo, I’ll leave you with this paper which addressed the accusation that the embryological development described in the Qur'an, has been plagiarised from the writings of ancient Indians, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Galen, and Jewish scriptures.

Kevin Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 19:02:21

In response to the third paragraph in your post....I suggest you re-read the account of the tempting of our first parents.

You said and I quote: if evil did not exist, there was only knowledge of good,....

There was also the "knowledge of Evil", ( the tree of ), and evil was already in the character of Satan who was abiding in "the tree" itself... this is crucial to keep in mind!

Remember, this universe was first cursed when Lucifer/Satan and his followers turned on God- and as a result were cast down to Earth.

Hope this helps...
davo Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 14:24:20
I understand you are only quoting what the scripture states, I am just trying to rationalise it, and I am not breaking it down to 'just tasting a bad apple', I am looking deeply at the implications of the text as to the god that is put forward by them. Your comment about how you want to read them is totally up to me is exactly what I mean by totally open to interpretation. These are foundational beliefs about god. I don't think asking the question if evil is part of god, or exists outside god is not an important one, as it gives us the concept of what god is, otherwise we have but empty faith, faith in other mens statements that a book is divinely inspired, and that their god is the correct one.

When you talk of a being that created EVERYTHING, predetermined, by all logic it has brought into existence everything. Inaction on the part of a supreme being creating everything, is as valid as action, as the being understands exactly everything resulting, and brought everything resulting into being.

If evil did not exist, there was only knowledge of good, there is a paradox in Adam and Eve committing a sin, as disobedience of god is a sin, or evil. They would not know of this until they ate of the tree. Indeed your claiming this is what started the chain of evil, and all of us are guilty of sin because of it. It's referred to as original sin. If the opposite to good did not exist, how would adam and eve understand disobeying god was a bad thing?

It's interesting, as if god is omni-max (omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent etc) then the world is pre-determined, there is no choice, and evil was a recognised and accepted facet of its creation and existence. a380 I thinks acceptance of a god that encompasses evil is a more logically valid one (In Qadr, or 'Allahs Decree' as a380 mentions), but not to put you off, I do understand and read texts from many christians that agree with that concept as well, and cite bible references (again interpretations) to back that up. If you look up the Kufr-i-Ta'weel, (Kufr means disbelief) you will see that in the Islamic world, you have to be able to make fatwa (law) to interpret the religious texts the Hadith and the Qur'an. Technically that is. Obviously this does not stop people from interpreting ... you have traditionalists, and reformists (I'll leave out the secularists) .. the reformists say that the old ways defined after allah that defines sharia, should be reformed, the traditionalists of course, state they should not. the issues and definitions of sharia, come from various texts, and various groups put various worth on the contents etc etc etc .. much the same issues as christianity has, except has a wider encompassing 'way of life', that is sharia, and a more defined 'constant' of interpretation (In my opinion, tho indeed it is part of the whole of their concept, whereas in christianity, personal interpretation is the name of the game).

As you can see, from Fadi quoting the Qur'an verse, that he attributes the text where every time someones skin is roasted in hell, it will be replaced with new skin so they can 'taste the punishment', is seen as a sign of the scientific fact of pain receptors in the skin, then backed by an appeal to authority (another logical fallacy) over a leading scientist justifying the text this way (then ironically enough converting to islam) .. you may see somewhat how similar material regarding 'revelations of scientific fact, historical revelations etc etc revealed in the texts' that comes left right and center from all religions just does not justify these texts as being divinely inspired. Yes, to those that are believers, it all makes sense.

Yes, I suppose I am looking for something more stark than these interpretations of age old texts in searching for the concept of a god. Indeed believers in them do not see it from the perspective of people that are not familiar with them at a faith/belief level, there is something of a suspension of willingness to critically approach anything that seems to support faith concepts held dearly.
Kevin Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 13:21:47

I'm only quoting what the scriptures or what you want to read into them is entirely up to you, I can't change that!

Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God- you can read the rest in Genesis. Satan plays a role in here also as you'd know. This was test of loyalty and obedience!- it's just not about tasting a bad apple, or what ever fruit it was!

davo Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 13:06:28
Just a sec, if god created a tree of the knowledge of something, he's defining it. He puts a tree there, with this knowledge of evil, and the humans eat it, creating evil.

Was the disobedience of god evil? If there was no such thing as evil, how did eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (which you define as not evil, just the knowledge of something that did not yet exist!?), be a 'bad thing'? How would adam and eve know that eating of the tree is 'evil'/ bad / a sin?

So evil exists 'outside' god? Or is evil part of everything, that is god?
Kevin Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 12:53:44
Originally posted by davo

If god created the world and knew in advance would become evil, isn't that creating evil?

No it's not Davo, He allowed it for the reasons that have been out lined here.

You mention genesis, what then of Genesis 2:17? "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Creating of the KNOWLEDGE OF EVIL... yes Davo, but not EVIL in its self!
davo Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 12:43:18
If god created the world and knew in advance would become evil, isn't that creating evil? Would evil exist without the actions of god? You seem to be referring to an old style 'Now I create evil', rather than looking at the claim that god created everything 'but not evil' .. where did evil then come from, if there was no framework for it? If evil is a lack of god, are you saying there is 'somewhere' there is no god? Is god all encompassing, or just one side of a whole? Doesn't this open the whole concept of a duality of 'power'?

You mention genesis, what then of Genesis 2:17? "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Kevin Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 12:22:29
Originally posted by a380


The creation of evil does NOT make God himself evil, (I know you didn't say that, but it's a point I'm making). Evil was created to test us and no more. [quote]
I don't believe in the so called " creative act " of evil ( that God created it ), but yes !... God allowed it to occur and develop for the purposes you've outlined in your above post.

Yes evil can serve it's purposes and God can use it along with anything else He chooses to fulfill His Will.

Disobedience issued Evil into the human race- and we can read about it Genesis.
davo Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 12:10:40
oops, again I must add, I am putting forward what is in my mind, the questions I am confronting myself over what is put forward, I am questioning as these are the questions my mind brings up over the comments. I am being honest in my thoughts, and if anything, hopefully you get some perspective over why I question.

I am indeed interested in the base concept of some higher being, but finding definitions to be difficult, hopefully you can see that which I am struggling with, by myself presenting these thoughts. I take people for who they are and what they do, and there is no way I can judge that, nor want to, on an internet forum. I hope to grow in my own concepts, maybe one day I will find 'god', I don't know.
davo Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 11:54:45
Thanks so much both of you for your patience with me, I appreciate understanding your views.

I have no belief in a god, as I find no evidence, indeed, all evidence presented is totally up to interpretation, and those with faith, seem to interpret wildly differently. The more I search for faith, and it's meanings, the more I see that adherants do not seem to search beyond the answers given them. I can not understand why a supreme being would consider using your 'god given brain', a bad thing. As you do not believe in Thor or Odin, the same reasons I do not believe in your presentation of a god. I am searching personally for any indication that a god exists, and the more I do, the more I am seeing the concept of a god, does not seem to be valid, logically, let alone as presented by the major religions, or any religion to date. Yes, I suppose technically this is atheism (lack of a belief in god). In that case, 1 out of 5 people in Australia are atheists then according to the 2006 census results. I fail to see why people therefore put this as a belief, as 'atheism' is the very definition is the lack of belief. I could say we all disbelieve in thousands of gods, I just take my disbelief one god further. That does not equal a belief system by far, and it's a misnomer considering someone without a belief in a god follows a belief system as there is none by definition. I find it ironic that religious people tend to focus on putting forward atheism as a belief, maybe because it will then be on such shaky ground as anyone making an assertion that has no evidence, reason or logic to back it up.

I'm focussing at the moment on the concept of a god, as you can see, both of yourselves have wildly varying versions. I think it is your upbringings or experience that lead you to your assertions, and inability to see why those that have not had that experience, find it hard to 'believe'. Which one to believe? There are so many 'One True Truths'! I think most all adherants are showing a highly evolved interpretations of texts, and these vary wildly. You would think these holy scriptures of religions would be quite explicit, to be acted upon exactly how they are read, not needing a highly 'educated' format for interpretation 'correctly'. If anything, these holy scriptures throw massive confusion into the world, not just strife.

a380's explanation of evil seems to open up more questions than it answers .. how then do you understand in the concept of 'evil' if it is the will of god, that you describe as an ultimately 'good' thing? Why do some people die or suffer immensely from evil and others are spared? Why does a god favour one persons birthplace upbringing over anothers? If you are saying evil is a good thing, there is no differentiation. This is why we see religious people committing the most heinous of acts just like any other people. What can be even more evil, is religious folk can do it, honestly believing it is 'good'. Interpretation of texts and teachings vary wildly, and the conviction of an afterlife can lead people to follow their interpretations, irrespective of the here and now, with the hope of salvation following their death. Your interpretation of evil having a higher good we cannot understand, is one of the reasons used by many in all religious groups, to shoot doctors, blow up buildings etc etc as well. The whole time, honestly believing they are doing 'good'. I find that strain of thinking quite scary!

With or without religion, we would have 'good' people and 'evil' people. The fact we are highly evolved social beings is the reasoning behind our highly evolved morals. Slavery for instance is a large part of the christian bible (old and new eg Ephesians 6:5-9), the ten commandments are half about a jealous god commanding us to believe in only him, leaving out slavery all together. Our current moral attitude to slavery has come about by our evolving high moral standards, a social construct, not a religious one.

I found the Qur'an contains very blurry, vague and metaphoric "practical examples" of the 'Big-Bang', embryology, astronomy etc, and picked out by scholars of the texts obviously, much the same as the bible does. They are not clear, and many totally innacurately presented compared to modern science, rather than even teachings at the time eg: embryology, that follows the greek version understood already at the same period .. Sura 23:12-14 directly follows the four stages described by the Greek physician Galen around 150 AD. Doctor Harith Ibn Kalada a companion of Mohammed studied at Jundishapur in Persia, thus was well aquainted with Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen. The accuracies and inaccuracies of this bit of text reflect Greek ideas of the time. It's all interpretation. There are many others. Indeed some interpretations of the flat earth concept (which I know you will deny), some people still believe is true. A totally different interpretation of text. If we look at the time it was written, that was the understanding however, and it was written clearly taken in the context of the time and it's thought.

As to your penchant for focussing on extreme crime, like murder, rather than looking at for example this scenario (and in a christian perspective as well) :

An 'atheist' lives a life doing good, caring for their children, loving others, caring for the community in which they live and others outside it, sharing, etc etc
A religious person, that steals, lies, commits crime of various low level and before their death 'gives all to their god'

Which gets 'heaven'? Is a supreme being so concerned that you follow a text, and have total belief in itself, with fear of extreme punishment in one hand and in the other an eternal prize? Would not a supreme being be more 'impressed' that you did good for goodness sake? That you enjoyed and respected the world, others, life, your children, explored the vastness that it gave us? Things are never so black and white, I am totally confused over what seems to be gods presented with such petty considerations (excuse the wording) such as having to believe in them for a start, secondly to spend all their lives following scripture as a guide.

I may not be of faith but I have started free food kitchens in melbourne and sydney, commit over 1/2 of my earnings to community groups and struggles of various sorts, I'm vegan (I do not see the need for slaughterhouses and production line death, when I have the choice not to partake in it) etc etc. I know and are friends with many people the same. I have worked in for instance the bushfire support in Victoria, with many others not of faith, working hard with their 2 hands, whilst religious groups in the area organised prayer sessions. Yes there was many that helped, but there was many more that didn't, and spent the time rather pleading to a god to intervene at some level.

I look at many of faith, and I am astounded that I am considered somehow lesser as they believe in a god with such conviction. Their interpretation is always the correct one, and everyone elses is 'wrong'. I am instantly condemned for not having their particular belief, and have to justify things such as morals, good and evil, as these people consider it cannot exist without their god. Society gives these people tax breaks and support above others that do not have the beliefs they do, which are also doing the same thing. They expect others not to question their belief in any way, as this is 'vilification'.

Indeed it is a strange world we live in.


Davo, as an atheist surely you believe in justice. If you and I were to be transported back to the 1940s, catch Hitler and bring him before the court. What would’ve been the maximum punishment that court could’ve handed down do you think? Death!? Sure, but I see no justice in that. It may be just for one single Jew who was killed by that man; how about the remaining 5,999,999 others? What would we say to their families?

This is a logical fallacy presented here. It's called Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Appeal to Emotion .. or 'wishful thinking'. It is not an argument for the existence of a god. You are appealing to the human need for justice at a higher level as a reason for the existence of a god, which makes no sense. Unfortunately a380, some evil people do get away from any justice by humans for what they have done, the consequences of justice have no bearing on whether the belief in a god is true or false. Finding some solace in your texts for their being justice in these terrible situations, is not a proof of god, let alone a proof your god is the correct one. BTW hitler was a devout catholic, interestingly enough.

thanks all for such an interesting conversation, I am sure we all grow within ourselves pondering these very personal perspectives, I know I am learning a lot, and appreciate the discussions. Hopefully in the midst of this, you can understand between the various faiths, why people such as myself, stand back going 'ummmm'. eeni-meeni-minie-moe doesn't seem to cut it ;)
Fadi Posted - 30 Jun 2009 : 02:05:37

The creation of evil does NOT make God himself evil, (I know you didn't say that, but it's a point I'm making). Evil was created to test us and no more. Everyone's talking about suffering; I see no problem with suffering, (when viewed in the right context). God is NOT some sadist Being who revels in our torment. Suffering is here for OUR benefit by way of the spiritual growth it provides. How else will you show your generosity if there was no one to be generous to etc? Haven't you heard the saying:" disaster brings the best out of people?"

I say adversity, suffering, and ALL that is perceived as being negative and evil at the time it’s occurring, has nothing except benefit and good for us. In other words, I believe in only a win win situation and NOT a win lose one. I think we can all prove this point to ourselves when we decide to look back at an event that occurred in our life which we thought was negative at the time of its happening; only to thank God that it did happen the way it did. Some people only become decent human beings when they go to jail. Try telling that to someone at the time of his/her arrest and so on. It's only later, upon reflection that the REAL reason is revealed to that person and they accept it, (sometimes not knowing that it was all divinely decreed all along).

Another term I keep on reading here is that God is all loving and therefore can not or should not do this or that. Have we forgotten that God is all just as well? I certainly would not want to believe in a God who is all loving to someone like Hitler. Problems arise when we misunderstand the meaning of love or more precisely unconditional love. I have four girls, my love towards them is unconditional in a certain context and NOT in ALL circumstances. I’ll clarify...

If for example they rebel by choosing not to listen to guidance etc, I will still provide for them irrespective whether they listen or behave properly or not (in the same way God provides for the unbelievers by giving them their sight, hearing, and other senses etc).Of course it would hurt me if they do not obey, because of my love for them and my desire for them to do good etc. But if for instance one of them decides to commit murder and, facing the sentencing judge I’m asked whether I would exchange places with her or plead with the judge to let her off because I AM ALL LOVING (UNCONDITIONALY); that I would not do. Because in that I would be UNJUST. Not only to the family of the murdered and to society as a whole, but also to my daughter's spiritual and character growth.

Davo, as an atheist surely you believe in justice. If you and I were to be transported back to the 1940s, catch Hitler and bring him before the court. What would’ve been the maximum punishment that court could’ve handed down do you think? Death!? Sure, but I see no justice in that. It may be just for one single Jew who was killed by that man; how about the remaining 5,999,999 others? What would we say to their families?

In Islam, there is a verse in the Qur’an that deals with this matter:

Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses (i.e. signs, proofs) - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise. But those who believe and do righteous deeds - We will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide forever. (Quran, 4:56-57)

Prof. Tagatat Tejasen, Chairman of the Dept. of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University in Thailand, had spent a great amount of time on research of pain receptors. Initially he could not believe that the Quran mentioned this scientific fact 1400 years ago. He later verified the translation of this particular Qur’anic verse. Prof. Tejasen was so impressed by the scientific accuracy of the Qur’anic verse, that at a medical Conference in 1985 he proclaimed in public the Shahadah (Islamic Declaration of Faith), i.e. he embraced Islam.

Fadi Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 23:42:28
Yes Kevin, now that you’ve said: “Freedom of choice doesn't necessarily require evil...” you do have a point brother. I was thinking of having to make a choice between committing murder and not committing such an evil act. In that context I was using my argument to say there would have to be evil. You can’t have ALL well and good. If that was to be, the belief in the creation of heaven and hell would’ve been pointless.

Davo, what exactly do you believe in if not in God? Secular liberalism may be? Now that would be interesting wouldn’t it! I can’t believe that you want to speak or argue from God’s point of view. That I haven’t heard before let me tell you!

Have you ever read the Qur’an? I respect that you’re an atheist. It tells me that you’ve been thinking and refuse to be a blind follower (of any religion / ideology).

Kevin Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 22:42:16
Davo, you wrote the following in your previous post...quote

1. This creation condemns individuals to eternal torment,

2. God effectively not only created evil, but condemns part of his creation to an eternity in fire.

As I've mentioned in previous posts...I don't ascribe to the belief that people burn eternally in hell- and there no scriptural evidence I can find to the fact that God created evil.
Kevin Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 21:31:24

Kevin, you say “I can't see the need for evil to have freedom of choice”. Then my reply to you would be; what would you be choosing between, if not good and evil. In other words, there won’t be a need for choice since all would be good.


Freedom of choice doesn't necessarily require evil when it comes to choosing and making a decision.
davo Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 14:19:55
a380 : fate doesn't mean chance. It's the opposite. It equals something you cannot change, destiny .. a predetermined chain of events. Whether that be by 'divine decree' or whatever, it's the same thing

Kevin : Thus, if a god knows everything that we will do, everything leading up to it, he created everything in this exact manner. He could have created it differently, created things to go any which way whatever, or not at all. In effect, god therefore created a clockwork machine, his 'plan'. This creation condemns individuals to eternal torment, as he could have chosen another path for each and every one or thing. Yes, to us, we have free will, but to such a being it is all understood from the start (to the 'end'). Effectively we are only responsible for being part of a chain of events and happenings, understood by this being, before it chose to create this 'clockwork' existence, including all the evil in it. God effectively not only created evil, but condemns part of his creation to an eternity in fire. Such a large amount of time considering the few decades in which our actions are made.

Very interesting philosophical questions I think, especially considering as you say we are held accountable in the grand scheme of things. As a father, myself I would forgive my children eternally, not for their actions as a small limited child compared to myself. Certainly not forever. But then this opens the question over a totally 'good' god...
Kevin Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 13:53:55

Your still responsible for the decisions you choose in this life wether they're forseen by God or not, and there's no getting away from that reality... and we'll be held accountable.

Jesus died to set us FREE!.
Fadi Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 13:42:44
Davo, no, I do not believe in fate; divine decree yes, fate no. To say fate is to bring an element of chance into the equation. Nothing happens by chance. I think you are confusing God’s omniscience with your free will to do things. His omniscience doe NOT COERCE you to do things; His knowing of all that you are going to do before you do it does not change anything you do; since you do not know what has been decreed.

Kevin, you say “I can't see the need for evil to have freedom of choice”. Then my reply to you would be; what would you be choosing between, if not good and evil. In other words, there won’t be a need for choice since all would be good.

davo Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 13:00:13
In other words, yes it does matter what god can forsee, as this is the crux of the issue of free will. If god can forsee everything, there is no free will as we cannot deviate from gods will.

let alone the fact that he could change every aspect of the whole tree that leads us to a decision ...
davo Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 12:43:57
Doesn't matter what God can have the ability to make choices; the responsibility still lies with you... eg. if you dont look after your health you can fall ill. We are all responsible for our actions, and heres another example! if you do the crime you do the time!

Is one such reply Kevin, but it seems to totally avoid the question presented, indeed I do not disagree to us it appears we have a choice, but I am looking not from our perspective, but that of an omniscient being 'giving free choice'.

How can god choose to give us choice, when god knows everything that will happen upon creating? If we could deviate from that, then yes we would have choice, otherwise, we are just fulfilling 'gods will'. By definition we cannot deviate from what an omniscient being knows, and if that being created everything, knowing everything that would be done, and has the ability to change that or create any way it wished, there is no such thing as free will.

I fail to see how re-stating as you have, that we have choice, and the responsibility lies with us, confronts the issue of an omniscient god, as presented? The only way your statement makes sense is if we can deviate from gods will upon creation. If we could do something that god could not predict, nor change in creation itself.

Are you saying that god cannot have predicted what everything would do, when choosing to create, and could not have made it happen a multitude of different ways?

I am frustrated by this question, and it appears in MANY theosophical debates and philosophical debates. I think you have missed the whole crux of the issue Kevin in your replies. This is a very well known theosophical dilemma.

This issue also pertains to all religions, not just christianity, as we see put forward by a380.

If God knows everything, what is the point in letting us live this life? He could put us in heaven or hell straight away.
Kevin Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 12:02:13
We've been over and over this many times!...I suggest you read over my replies in past posts.
davo Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 11:40:36
Can you do something that god did not predict?

If you can, then god is not omniscient. If you can't, then there is no choice, you are doing exactly what god predicted before choosing to create. Yea sure, to you it may seem like free will, but to an omniscient god, you are doing exactly what was predicted, when the whole of creation was set in motion. You cannot deviate from that. ie: fated.

The concept of free will and an omniscient being is a paradox?
Kevin Posted - 29 Jun 2009 : 10:37:57

I'd much rather have evil AND the freedom of choice instead of NO EVIL and have a sheep's mind instead.


I can't see the need for evil to have freedom of choice.
Fadi Posted - 28 Jun 2009 : 15:07:08
The Holy Qur'an states:
Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial; to Us must ye return. (Al-Anbiyaa' 21:35)

I believe the answer is stirring you right in the face; that is to say that in the creation of evil is wisdom of the Almighty. To have no evil would be illogical that we should have been given the faculties of reason which enable us to distinguish good from evil. The mere fact that we do have a choice to choose right from wrong, good from evil, necessitate the creation of evil. I'd much rather have evil AND the freedom of choice instead of NO EVIL and have a sheep's mind instead.

davo Posted - 27 Apr 2009 : 11:21:27
Sounds like you are saying 'Ignore the impossibilities, keep listening over and over until you believe' :\
PhilMac Posted - 27 Apr 2009 : 00:46:47
gidday all , theres a dvd called "unlocking the mysteries of life" , it does question evolution , and pretty much says there must be a higher authority.

anyway for every old testiment picture is a new testiment principle.

hahahahahahahahaha some of you guys must be on computer all day and night , lucky they invented a rubish bin , dunno why youz send the same message 10 plus times .

davo , i asked friend to help me try answer your Q's Faith, well the bible says "faith comes by hearing, hearing the word of god" , so dude you need to hear preaching of the gospel regularly , probably by the net since you live out bush , and read Jesus's parabells , not try working things out , just read it for what it says. You want to be saved , cry out to god , ask him "god if your real i need to know , god speaks to your heart ...... god bless
davo Posted - 25 Apr 2009 : 22:01:24
If this god, is all powerful, how is 'satan' an enemy? You are arguing that satan is just doing a gods work, as that god is the creator, setting everything in motion, from beginning to end.

On one hand, you have come to the assumption that a god could not create suffering due to it's nature, and on the other hand, claim that this god, created everything, including suffering. I do not understand how you resolve that your assumptions are correct, from the lines that you yourself are drawing, over an assumption of where this supreme beings lines are drawn regarding suffering. It appears to be wishful thinking, stating that this god is all good (except he created all these beings to suffer in the first place, men women children and animals) ... but that bits ok, just not the other bit.
rodgertutt Posted - 25 Apr 2009 : 21:06:27
Like I said on my other thread I am a "Christian Biblical Universal Transformationist."
See especially the very last paragraph on that link.

I’m convinced that after we have thought the very best thoughts about God, we can be sure that He is even better than that because He is able to do above what we can even think, Ephesians 3:20. And IMHO I cannot think any higher thoughts than universal transformation.

I believe that after our resurrection from the dead God will eventually somehow transform every second of everyone's suffering into something better that it happened.

That includes both the unexplained and unjustifiable suffering that we all experience in varying degrees, as well as what the Bible calls "kolasis aionian" which means age-during corrective chastisement that everyone who needs it will experience.

I believe that God will eventually fit every unique individual into His master plan in a positive way that necessitates their unique temporary involvement in evil and suffering.

I believe that God has both the ability and the intention to save all fallen creatures from everything from which they need to be saved, and He will not fail to do so.

I believe that God's determination, within the wise counsel of His DECRETIVE will which is that which MUST occur, to eventually rid all of creation from suffering, will in every case, overcome the strongest will that is temporarily opposed to God's PRECEPTIVE will which is what His creatures OUGHT to do.

I believe the only mistake that I am probably making is in grossly underestimating just how gloriously God will achieve this universal transformation through what Christ accomplished for everyone by His death and resurrection, through the power in the blood of his cross. That is the kind of God that I see in the Bible.

Realizing that he is including everyone without exception, the following quote by universalist Dr. Leslie Weatherhead nicely sums up what I believe.

“God’s purposes are so vast and glorious, beyond all guessing now, that when they are achieved and consummated, all our sufferings and sorrows of today, even the agonies that nearly break our faith, the disasters that well nigh overwhelm us, shall, seen from that fair country where God’s age long dreams come true, bulk as little as bulk now the pieces of a broken toy upon a nursery floor, over which, thinking that all our little world was in ruins, we cried ourselves to sleep.”

Regarding “the son of perdition” click on
then scroll down to

SATAN’S SALVATION ETCETERA - Grace super-exceeding!!!

an online scriptural expostion

It would have been easy for God to impress upon Satan that it would not temporarily be in his best interest to choose evil, but God didn’t do that because He had (has) an eonian plan to use the temporary existence of evil and suffering to teach lessons. Then at the consummation of God’s plan for the ages of time God will eradicate evil and suffering from existence.

Since all of creation is in the Son of God’s love, through Whom God delights to reconcile all, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens, there is no more reason to suppose that Satan (and Judas and Hitler and Stalin) are not included therein than that any other creature is not included therein.

Therefore, it must be that that notable creature who had rightly long been termed “the Adversary,” is very much included in the reconciliation of the universe, at which time this title (“Adversary” or “Satan”) necessarily will no longer apply, since he will be reconciled and be at peace.

A time is coming when Satan himself, the instigator of human opposition and dissension will be beneath our feet. Rom. 16:20.
Now he dominates the actions of many a saint. But later his place and power will be taken from him and we will be above him, able to subdue and control the one who, next to our flesh, was the cause of most of our miseries. Just as the enemies of Christ will figuratively find themselves a footstool for His feet, so will the greatest of all our enemies be placed beneath our power.

But best of all, we will not retaliate. We will not use our authority to further alienate and estrange Satan from God or from ourselves. We, to whom conciliation was first presented, will be conciliatory to all, and be able to bring back all our enemies into the circle of friendship and conciliation with God.

Doubtless due to Satan’s machinations, we cannot now even bring about peace among ourselves. But then all our own differences will have been dissolved, and we will be able to bring it to our erstwhile enemy in the spirit world, the Adversary himself.

Satan is an enemy of God, and must be included among the enemies reconciled to God by the blood of Christ's cross, one of those "in heaven." Since death is the last enemy, then Satan must be reconciled to God prior to the destruction of death, and the subsequent emptying of death, and the presentation of the whole reconciled universe to God, when God becomes All in all.

C.S. Lewis wrote, “The greatest surprise for Satan will occur when he learns that he has been perfectly doing the will of God all along.”

Personally I think the greatest demonstration of God’s grace in action among the celestials will be when Satan bows in humble submission and love in front of His Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Any hell that anyone will experience the Bible calls "kolasis aionian," which means age-during corrective chastisement.

It is limited in duration, and corrective in purpose.

I think that everyone who needs it will experience just the right amount of what the Bible calls "kolasis aionian" which means "age-during corrective chastisement."



We universal reconciliationists believe that because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the power in the blood of His cross, God will eventually transform all evil and suffering into something better that it happened for everyone, and when evil and suffering has served God’s eonian purpose, God will eradicate them both from existence.

CHRIST TRIUMPHANT - Thomas Allin (an online scriptural exposition)


davo Posted - 25 Apr 2009 : 17:08:46
Originally posted by Kevin

Hi PilMac,

I think all he was trying to point out was that he doesn't believe the bible teaches 'eternal suffering'...( burning eternally ).

Indeed, the author is presenting the fact that everyone is saved, regardless of 'sin', using the claim that an all loving god, could not send people to hell for eternity.

However this does not confront the situation, of how an all loving god, could create evil in the first place, if eternal suffering was so against it's 'nature' as not being able to exist, then surely, either could a creation of existence, that contains evil.

Originally posted by PhilMac

Not everything you read is truth ,just an opinion with a science degree backing by man , like charles darwin - evolution , yet apparently before his time creation was always taught.

I find this odd that evolution is brought up as an opinion. We can see evolution at work, evolution is a fact just as much as gravity, the only 'opinion' is the methodology of evolution, or how evolution works, which is referred to as the Theory of Evolution.

It is a common misunderstanding with those that do not understand what "Theory" means in science, and one some folk seem to point at as meaning evolution is not agreed upon. It is only minor aspects of factors of the Theory of Evolution that are even in dispute amongst leading evolutionary biologists, and the only people that do claim evolution does not exist, harp on the terminology with no understanding of the usage of the terminology. Evolution is fact, the theory of evolution is the commonly accepted reasons on how evolution works
Kevin Posted - 23 Apr 2009 : 23:04:44
Hi PilMac,

I think all he was trying to point out was that he doesn't believe the bible teaches 'eternal suffering'...( burning eternally ).
PhilMac Posted - 23 Apr 2009 : 19:09:49
The gospel of Jesus Christ is simple , very simple .... all this stuff you've sent means not much to me,you must be an expert or teacher of sorts. Not everything you read is truth ,just an opinion with a science degree backing by man , like charles darwin - evolution , yet apparently before his time creation was always taught. Anyway thats heavy enough . Just trying to answer a guy's Q's.
Christians aint perfect , just acknowledge a god and his saving grace.

Im a simple guy , whom cried out to god , wanted to commit suicied and found that there is a god, creation is real, read the bible ,go to church , witness to people about jesus . - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects © 2005 to 2018 Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.14 seconds.                        You must Register and Confirm your email, and then log in first before posting! Snitz Forums 2000