35 Answers (1-30 Displayed)

Q1) So you could not accuse God of not giving you a choice

Q2) God will destroy Satan when all has been accomplished in Jesus Christ. (you'll have to read the bible)

Q3&4) God's grace. God is longsuffering. If God were to end all of this now your chance of salvation would be over and you would have to go to the lake of fire with Satan. He is waiting for you, longing for you to receive His love and mercy.

Does not the Creator have the authority over the creation to set the rules and prameters of life? You can accept a FREE offer of grace and mercy for your sins or you must depart from the love of God forever. Doesn't seem like a difficult choice to make since it is free, but men love themselves and their sins more than the Creator, so they choose to live and die without God.

"Longsuffering" means God is willing to endure the evil for a long time and He does this because He is patiently waiting for all those who would believe.

The wages of sin is death (spiritual death and seperation from the Holy Spirit of God). All have sinned and have experienced this spiritual seperation from God. Jesus satisfied the death penalty for mankind at the cross. Jesus is God's attonement for sin. What those who believe on Jesus do not have to suffer is the seperation from God anymore...eternal life. While still here on earth in this life Christians will still suffer at the hands of evil.

The 66 books of the bible are in perfect harmony one with the other. There are absolutely zero contradictions. You probably have not practiced proper bible exegesis or bible hermeneutics. You must first learn these methods to then make a proper analysis of the scriptures.

I've ask for someone to show me where there is a contradiction or misleading statement in the BIBLE and have heard nothing.

Because they were different views of the same thing wrote by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John if you have four people give a report on some event they won't be identical, unless they copy. So they not identical but there are no contradictions. LOVE, Randy

So if God created the evil, then why? If he is omnipotent, then why not just get rid of Satan and be done with it? So why wait until Jesus Christ has accomplished his deeds? Why not just do it now?

But Christianity already says I have no choice. I mean given the choice of unbridled purgatory or heaven, what choice does anyone who believes Gods exist actually have? Your last point about suffering, I thought Jesus supposedly died for our sins so we would not need to suffer. Or do I have the entire Christian ideals wrong? Oh, and I have read the Bible, but it is so contradictory from story to story, it makes no sense when taken as an aggregate.

If there are absolutely no contradictions between stories in the Bible, then why are stories recounting the life and death and rebirth of Jesus not identical?

That seems perfectly reasonable until you consider the books were supposedly all written by God. If God wrote the books, then it would be His view, not the people the books were named after.

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors.

The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Those were from: A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)

Jim Meritt

[Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his own intelligence and decide for himself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study.]

Contrary to what you are saying, people who are atheist, do not blame gods for what is happening in the world, good or bad. People who are agnostic do not agree with organized religions because they agree with Martin Luther that a person can have a relationship with God without intermediaries, or they just have not found an idea about deities that works for them, or they are unsure if deities even exist. And as far as trying to save others, to go out and preach the word of God is very much in the context of many religions and I hold no ill feelings for anyone trying to save others.

But I want to remind everyone reading this, the line of philosophical thought attributed to Epicurus came from a Greek philosopher living more than two hundred years before Christ, when Greek was under Roman control, along with most of Europe. His quote refers to questioning gods protecting city-states of Greece. But isn't it interesting how ancient philosophical ideas has relevance today?
And if anyone has not figured it out, we are using the Socratic method for attempting to discern the truth by asking questions and attempting to wind our way to truth.

GOD wants you to accept him by FAITH, there is a hole in your heart that only HE can fill. That hole is the HOLY SPIRIT seeking him. The bible can be hard to understand but you can get all you need to be saved (born again, converted) by following The Roman Road to Salvation: http://contenderministries.org/romanroad.php LOVE, Randy

Yes, the HOLY SPIRIT is trying to lead you to god to have you accept HIS gift of eternal life. A good exampleof what GOD can do is on my home link here please read it.

So, if I understand you correctly Randy, by reading the bible and not searching for either help or God means biblical understanding will not occur? But I am searching for the truth, is that not what God would want? And if God does want that, then He should open the Bible to me, just as he has done for you. But if he does not want that, then what does that say about God? Epicurus said "if Is he able, but not willing [to prevent evil]? Then he is malevolent." Does that make Him malevolent?

"That hole is the HOLY SPIRIT seeking him." I am confused by what you are trying to say here. Please restate or give some examples of how what you are trying to say.

GOD is not a him or her he is a Spirit.

You're funny, I'm sure they addressed GOD as father because HE is the father of man by creation not sex. HE is one the trinity is one three-forms of GOD.

Very good point! Polarities being opposed. But I question whether no thing could be created without polarity because it seems to me there are not just positive and electrical charges, but also neutral charges in every atom. So should not that indicate that there are not only opposites, but also a central? Sort of a trans-polaritity idea far beyond my meager brain to consider or fully appreciate. But even so, the idea is intriguing and should be explored more fully. Very good discussion. Please continue. :-)

But in the Christian Bibles, God is referred to as Him or He. But then again, I'm still not sure about justification for the Holy Trinity, being part Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, making Him only part Spirit.

God did by pass both you feel it inside it is your true feelings. It is the same as the love you have for someone there is no true proof. The love you have for another is felt not seen, heard or touched. Remember that Jesus said I knew you all before you were born. So one could say our spirit was born first. Every person has their own unique path no two people will share the same path it may be similar but it will not be the same. Good Luck with your search for the answers you are looking for.

One does not simply read the any Bible, one must hear it as well beyond simple words, to hear and receive, suuch holy mysteries. The words are their formulas, the riddle the key. The solutions are in Reason and Reason is in God alone.

Blue one to hear is to understand beyond mere knowledge, that which is hidden in its riddles or parables, literalism notwithstanding.

So, you are attempting to apply Universal and Natural Laws to a god? You say he is limited by His nature - but I am confused why He should be limited to anything, because if he is, then he is not omnipotent, which is what Epicurus pointed out many years ago. But then you say God is not controlled, but has complete control, so how is he limited by his own control? Also, why did He create a satan who God, if omnipotent, would know would disobey Him? And if Satan has fallen, why is there evil today? Nope, no thumbs up at this time - needs a better argument and then I will send you a thumb up. :-)

Reason is the whole point here. So, I being Deaf, who can never "hear the Bible," am always going to be ignorant of It's truth? Please elaborate, so I can understand why a God, who can do anything, would not just supplant the truth by bypassing both sight and sound in order to give everyone in the world a fighting change at being with God after the second coming.

Thank you Felicia, and same to you. As far as love is concerned, I know of many divorced couples who love each other, but cannot stand to be married to each other. So how does that work as far as Jesus is concerned?

You must be right because you talk in riddles too. I just wish you would address the quote and not overreact to what others ask or say.

Is the "true Bible version" written in Hebrew or Latin? Every translated version of every document I have ever read had inconsistencies between languages and cultures that if not read in the original text, contains discrepancies of ideas based on either local culture or ideas that were not included in the translated text. That is why so many people have so many different versions of the Flood story, mentioned in Bibles, even though the story goes back much further in human history. But then again, the Bible is perfect and contains everything anyone ever needs to appreciate the deity.

Well said.

I cant make you see what I see or understand what it is that I beleive I understand. I am very pleased that you ask questions. That is how my journey began. I know that i could not raise billions apon billions of children with out allowin gthem to work out there own issues. But I also do not see deathas the end of life... that my be the reason i see Gods will as just.

Ah, so what you are saying is the "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." is the weak part of the quote because as a parent, he would allow evil, people like Hitler, so as to get us to live with our consequences? Hmm. The idea that you must allow the kids to fail to grow makes perfect sense, but to take it to the extreme of allowing millions of Jews to die during the Holocaust, just to get us to live with the consequences, seems to me to be child abuse. But maybe you are right, that a god must go to extremes to prove a point. Or am I misunderstanding your argument?

I am glad you completed your journey. But it must be lonely having all the answers and not being able to share them. I wish I could somehow get some of your conviction and believe. Unfortunately, my mind refuses to let go of the inconsistencies found not only in the Christian religion, but in all religions.

Jenn, I really would like you to comment on my counter argument about allowing millions of Jews to be murdered by the Nazi's. It seams to me that they were innocent, especially the children, the mentally insane, and the children with variations of downs that Hitler also sent to the gas chambers, or just put bullets in their heads in front of parents and loved ones. No, I don't see that as a compassionate God allowing us mortals to "work it all out on our own." I call that gross negligence on the part of a God.

The other problem I have with your last comment is that you are not a god. If you were, you would not have any problems raising billions of children because, you are a god! If a god cannot handle a few billion mortals, insects, animals, plants, rocks, stars, planets, comets, asteroids, trillions of grains of sand, weather, volcanoes, etc, etc., then what right does he have being called a god?

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I am ignorant of your God. I had hoped you could somehow help me, but I must have been wrong about that too. Maybe next time...

I have no god. Epicurus was a philosopher, not a god. As for "trying to dominate this site," I am not trying to dominate this site, but it is my question that I raised, making it fair game that I respond to people who respond to my question in order to set up a dialog that hopefully will be enlightening in some way or another. As far as being a "phoney" intellectual, I think the word you were trying to spell was "phony" intellectual (but I digress)...

To put it in words you may better understand:

Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be in danger of being judged; and he who says to his brother, Raca, will be in danger from the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, You foolish one, will be in danger of the hell of fire."

Epicurus and his followers are mentioned in the Bible too, or did you miss that too? But what do I know, I'm just a foolish "phoney" intellectual atheist who must never have read the Bible or any other documents from antiquity. Legend of Gilgamesh anyone?

But again, I digress: Just because you may be having a hard time putting together a lucid argument about the quote I asked about should not make you as upset as it seems to be. Once you calm down and regroup, I would be happy to discuss it further with you. But for now, take a breather, count to one hundred, and take a chill pill, and read your Bible, thank your God, ask for forgiveness, and pray for me and the rest of the sinners, then come back to the page and write something that demonstrates the intelligence I am sure you are capable of. Until then, pleasant dreams.

Blue One, that of which I speak is in you, the very life in you, its voice is intuitive, beyond the objective world. Certainly you could understand if you knew this and who you are. You are yet guided of personality, which guyided by the "senses" can only objectify in a material world. Therefore it is impossible to understand, that which is reserved for the Soul alone, which is Subjective. Find your true self and you will be able to penetrate the depths, freely.

. . . not knowing or understanding these things is the darkness of ignorance. Scholarships, simly educated knowledge without understanding, is just ignorance raised up to its new position and more dangerous than pure ignorance. Scholarships are most often in these concepts just the doctrines and commandment of men and the world and the world is full of parrots, quoting quoting, everyone but themselves. No personal revelations, no new light drawn from the light of their teachers.

Oh Blue One . . . Hummm . .. the "personality" has chosen to be sensitive and hurt, ever the last resort, that ws not my intent . . . I too, could quote, quote, quote. But, one must at some point, after the seeking and research, draw their "own Light" Inner-Light, from the effort. It is thus one honors those writers, teachers or better Revelators. You must transcend fundamentalism, for though it is a beginning it becomes a stagnent dead end without, epiphany or revelation. Jesus, the Christed, was crucified in this cause, by fundamentalists. Don't be hurt :)

. . . The Spirit is ever progessive, not stagnated in the dry bones of the historic past. It lives in the hearts of men not in the literality of dusty books, ancient or new, save their motivating esoterics, their motivating influence. That which inspires men to true understanding. Look up, research the words you don't understand before judging them. Open you mind and heart.

Interestingly put. So what you are telling me is that the subjective nature of the matter makes it impossible to understand by mortals like me because they are indescribable and unknowable? If so, why is there a Bible or Karan or all the studies of religion? Nirvana and Heaven are supposed to be similar. How does one get to either if not by accepting and learning and loving? Does a person have to be aware of God to gain entrance, or can ignorance be bliss. And if so, if we cannot know such matters, doesn't that make us all ignorant? Or does it make us all blissful?

I take issue with you insinuating I don't know who I am. But more so, I find it presumptuous of you to say that education is more dangerous than ignorance.
Your argument about senses is the same one Ptoloemy made 2,500 years ago in Greece. 2,000 years later, the argument was disproven during the Enlightenment and the Columbian exchanges, showing that while the dark ages arguments made sense metaphysically, the study of the natural philosophies (sciences) required experimentation to fully develop better understandings of our world and the universe.
Ignorance is not bliss.

If you are are referring to me as being sensitive or hurt, fear not. But you have not convinced me that ignorance of any subject is preferable to learning about that subject. After all, how can a person have revelations about any subject without first having a basis of understanding of it first? I would however agree that at some point when doing historical research, some basic understanding can be made after analyzing as many documents concerning the subject as possible given whatever time constraints the researcher might be under...

I also agree that a person should look up words and ideas before judging them, and I have an open mind. But that being said, I did draw my own conclusions concerning this quote and did present my own argument on this site, and on this section. Please look it up and give a counter argument if you would like. Now, as far as the rest of what you wrote, I need to point out once again...The original quote had nothing to do with Christianity because Jesus would not have been born for at least 250 years after the quote. What does that mean? It invalidates every Christian argument for this discussion.

And by invalidating, I mean to say that any discussion should be about the quote being discussed. For example: Epicurus was asking when can a person or thing or god be considered a God? What are the parameters of god? In other words, if a man walked up to you on the street and claimed to be The God, how would you evaluate that? This is important because many people over the years have followed men who claimed to be messiahs. While you may argue that they were not, it is irrelevant. What is relevant is how a god could be evaluated? In other words, when is a god, a God?

I am not asking you to evaluate your God or The God if you like, but rather, hypothetically, what is a God?

Interestingly, you say there is a tie to step back and allow knowledge to ferment and I agree, every time I go to sleep, or use the toilet, or rake the leaves, or drive any distance in my car, my mind begins to wander and I let it, within limits of course, I am driving a car and don't want to have a wreck. But as Socrates asked, what is wisdom? Who is wise? And how is that wisdom used? From what Plato says of Socrates, it was apparent he found no one who he thought was wise in a land of brilliance. But with the advent of computer communications, I hope to succeed where Socrates failed.

So that being the case, who are the wise men of today and why are they wise?

Blue One - Hummmmm . . . you certainly puts around in a lot of things, but you yet skate on the surface of it all words and concepts, the depths are in understanding, your presentations purely fundamental. Sadly I must recend my praise on you having achieved an open mind. Wordy ofuscation, the shield, protecting you from exposure. Understanding penetrates into the depths by reason.

Bluedeath is in response to having the blues, and killing them with wonder and amazement anywhere I can find it. Originally, it was supposed to be Bluesdeath, but in my typing, I messed it up and I was stuck with Bluedeath. But anyway, getting back to your response, I would have to say quantum physics has more in common with Taoism than Christianity. In fact, one of my favorite books is called the Tao of Physics. Also, I really dislike when anyone types things like, "Science says" or History tells us, because neither is true. What is better to say is, according to the "Inverse Square Law..."

Another thing that messes with my mind as a Historian is when students say, "the book says..." No, the book does not say, the author Susan Ronald claims Philip II helped place Elizabeth I on the throne after Bloody Mary died because Elizabeth, although Protestant, was better than allowing the French to control England under Mary, Queen of Scotts. I hope that clarifies my position about the Bible too because many people reference the Bible by saying, "The Bible Says..." when they should say, John wrote that...

Now, getting back to your comment directly about energy forms, while I would agree we are all made up of energy in the form of matter, I would point out that energy does dissipate, getting weaker the further away it travels from the source. In most cases, it uses a similar Inverse Square Law first described by Robert Hooke in 1678 and then written down and published by Sir Isaac Newton in 1686 when attempting to describe gravity. Today, that same ISL is used in radiation fields, and countless others too.

Now, speaking of metaphysics: while I agree it is a wonderful branch of philosophy dealing with people used to call, the natural philosophies, aka what we call science today, I find it difficult to substantiate, "Both believe in the Everlasting" because neither science nor metaphysics have consciousness, meaning they cannot believe in anything because those two things are themselves just ideas, and not life forms which go back to my earlier comments about clarity. Who is it that believes in the Everlasting energy when energy itself becomes so weak over time and distance it tends to become...

imperceptible? Granted, with the best equipment, a scientist could arguably find energy residue left over after x-rays striking a disk produces breaking and scatter radiation, but after a short time, that energy is no longer present, and has been either absorbed, scattered, or so weak it can no longer be measured because the intensity of the radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, allowing very accurate measurements of that radiation for whatever distance you want to measure. So I am confused why or how if it is the same as God, as you say, that

"It is the same with Life, Spirit and God." then why would these three things not dissipate too, just as energy in the form of x radiation does with distance, time, and shielding? Although energy does fade, I would agree that matter does not, but rather changes form trying to find its simplest and most stable form, even if that means releasing energy to change that matter from a radioactive, to a non-radioactive form. For example, Radium to Barium. That being the case, if there are limits to a God, as Epicurus put it, then why call Him a God?

Hmmmmmm, Gabalis, I am sad that you must "recend" your praise, although I am not looking for it either. I'm not sure what you were trying to say with the sentence, "Wordy ofuscation, the shield, protecting you from exposure." I understand unclear words obscure understanding, but if you are trying to say I use exacting language to shield myself from exposing myself from understanding truth, you are mistaken.

You won't have had to post that comment if you did understand. I am simply sharing what I have been given to understand other wise why would I care. Don't be so parnoid. Apparently you have had trouble with government, everybody has, it is sucking the middle class dry LOL

Randy, don't be so hard on yourself, the words I use are english, it is simple to look them up, and learn. As far as common sense, it is not given, it has to be "learned." What is common sense to a truck driver or a doctor, or an athelete, etc. I am not trying to hurt any one just sharing, and hoping it will help someone. God Bless you, be at peace.

Our beloved Christ, spoke in an esoteric manner, giving his gift wrapped in "Papables" and called them the "keys to the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven." The gift is for all those who truly seek to solve them; reserved for them, not the exclusive property of any teaching system. for you when you are ready. Exoteric is literal and more common to any fundamentalistic system, but we all must start some wnd ever question. It was fundamentalists that curcified our beloved brother Jesus.

Blue One, There are many, one but have an open mind to hear them, and in the end they can only guide or help point you the right direction to the greatest teacher within you, your own true self. Transcended of personality; the Pretender.

I believe more people understand things than you give credit for, are you in government?

Exoterically: intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
Esoterically: intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
That is the definition I got, same thing, people with a specialized knowledge would only understand.

God showed early people great things (people witnessed these things) and still they fell away. In JESUS time he showed great healing and miracles (people witnessed these things) still they fell away. Today great miracles are all around us (people witnessed these things) still they Refuse to believe. Why, I can't say other than no one likes rules. Love,Randy

You claim all such teachings are two sides of the same coin. What teachings are what would be the coin? In other words, what is the subject matter being taught, and who are the teachers?

The god you speak of Gabalis, is not the gods written about in the original quote. But even so, from my understanding, the "gift" you refer to is given to those who give up trying to understand and just accept the words and teaching of Christ. If that is true, then the most truly blessed seem to me to be the ones who struggle with the questions the most. If that is true, then I will struggle some more to understand because when our discussions are over, I hope to be blessed with a greater understanding. And if my understanding leads to the acceptance of a God as my savior, then great!

But if not, that just means my journey to self awareness and understanding must continue, and that is not a terrible thing either because it is in the journey where true happiness comes, not the completion of the journey. I wax poetic, because while I do not believe in a God or Gods, I truly want to understand why so many do, and how they came to the conclusion, and what it all means. So that being the case, why have gods changed from society to society over time if there is only one god?

Again, I ask, if there is only one god, why has its presentation changed throughout history?

The earliest written form of the Germanic word god comes from the 6th century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic * ǥuđan. Most linguists agree that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * ǵhu-tó-m was based on the root * ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".[4] The Germanic words for god were originally neuter—applying to both genders—but during the process of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the word became a masculine syntactic form.[5]

The capitalized form God was first used in Ulfilas's Gothic translation of the New Testament, to represent the Greek Theos. In the English language, the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism.[6][7] In spite of significant differences between religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Bahá'í Faith, and Judaism, the term "God" remains an English translation common to all. The name may signify any related or similar monotheistic deities, such as the early monotheism of Akhenaten and Zoroastrianism.

When used in English within a community with a common monotheistic background, "God" always refers to the deity they share. Those with a background in different Abrahamic religions will usually agree on the deity they share, while still differing on details of belief and doctrine—they will disagree about attributes of [the] God, rather than thinking in terms of "my God" and "your (different) God".

Of course this was from Wikipedia, but is essentially the same for the information I found in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, and the Origin of Words Dictionary. If you have some reference backing up your interpretation, I would love to see it so I can do further research. Ideally, that would be some primary document from before the 6th century using the word God in context backing up your claim. But I will allow secondary sources provided they are legitimate and scholarly.

Very good questions fastbob72. So how about it folks, will a convicted murderer who repents and gets baptized of his sins just before death, be saved? Throughout history, Kings would wait until their deathbed to be baptized for that very reason. What do the rest of you think?

Mortuzac . . Indeed, God is all that is and all that is not; God is our very Life in this physical experience, for he is the Everlasting Life, men so covet. What do you think is packing this pile of dirt (body&personality)around? To be Human is to express the divine part of mankind. In the essence this is the DIVINE part of Man-"kind." That which trancends the animal part. This again is the expression of the Godly part, Spirit. To know this within will be expressed in Peace and Love; the Father and the Son within. Rejoice in the knowing! :)

Eh, yeah. Please do not call me darling. I am not your darling; nor are you my Daddy. Only my wife is allowed to call me darling, thank you. Now back to your comment: You said, "He has to allow for choice in all our lives." Why? Why must a God do anything? Is there some type of universal or natural law that a god must follow saying he HAS to allow for choice in our lives? Again, why? That statement does not make any sense to me. Please explain.

Too quickly and you speak for your self. One must at least once in a while stand up for the truth, and strongly, in spite of repercussions, such as yours. I can bear any such judgement, without a flinch. Sometime a strong tap on the shoulder to shake the dark spirit of ignorance loose. You cottle, by nurturing this lost one who is just looking to make issues for attention. You apparently agree with the language and the ignorance. And Oh' by the way, if you haven't noticed, though you heart may be in th right place, you have just done the same thing. :)

. . . and lastly he is a troll who has sucked both in LOL

And what does this have to do with the quote? Please explain using parts of the quote to better explain your position.

Quarks aside, and until Cern is up and running the idea that central forces must be magnetic continue to be debated just as the idea that the eleven dimensions exist concurrently. I find the argument that the transitional missing quantum central to my question at odds with your final argument about the missing being labeled as either masculine or feminine because those ideas seem to be at odds with current investigations at Fermi Lab, outside of Chicago. But either way, to jump from quantum physics to the idea that somehow this is where the soul is hiding difficult to fathom. Please elaborate.

The bible says in one million words what the tao says in five thousand. It simplifies your understanding of balance, and it was written by the great 'Liatsu' (which could be spelled wrong).. the origins of the bible is dubious to say the least. The origins of the tao are noted in chinese history, and it was written thousands of years before the bible. Ancient chinese wisdom is based off of it. It is not an exchange, it is a complete replacement.

Read the Tao? I was not aware of a single book called Tao. But even so, to exclude one book in favor of another when dealing with philosophical ideas seems counterproductive. My favorite books on Taoism are the Tao of Pooh, the Te of Piglet, and the book that compares Quantum Physics to Taoism called the Tao of Physics. Both are amazing looks into a workable lifestyle based on the journey, verses the completion of that trek.

First I would say that God is omnipotent, but for argument sake I do not believe it matters because God gave us freedom of choice. It is our free will that will determine if we are good or bad. It is also our free will that lets us decide if we believe or not. This is why we have good and evil without both there would be no choices to make and free will would be useless.

Yes you are right but you cannot have good without bad in any regard.
Free will is for like you said occupations, families, artistic creations and so on. well we have good and bad occupations we also have good and not so good artists. If we did not have god and bad to compare we would not have first, second or third place. If everyone created a masterpiece no one would have the drive to do better or change anything.

bluedeath, How many of the ten commandments have you broke? That's freewill your choice to obey or not and we all have broken some of the commandments in our life. So GOD sent his SON (THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE) so we can have everlasting life through him in heaven. OK, Love Randy

I agree that everyone should read the Bible, the Karan, the Book of Mormon, and the Bahai faith texts. But I also believe you should read anything you can find on Taoism, and Buddhism, and I have read all these texts an many other ancient texts that describe the floods and other creation myths. That being said, in the quote above, Epicurus is not talking about a Christian god, but I maintain this Greek text is important today as it was then. please give a response about that quote. Do you agree with his argument that if a God is not omnipotent, there is no reason to call him a God?

Interesting argument, Felicia. God gave us free choice to be good or bad, to believe or not, without good and evil free will would be useless? But isn't free will more than just choosing good over evil? Isn't free will also choosing an occupation, having or raising children to be responsible citizens, or the ability to create music, art, ideas, and conclusions? If so, then why have evil when there are so many other choices to make by free will?