"Why is the God of the Old Testament a God of wrath, while the God of the New Testament is a God of mercy?"

The God of the New Testament is no different than the God of the Old Testament. "They" are one and the same. The Bible says that He never changes. He is just as wrath-filled in the New Testament as He is in the Old. He killed a husband and wife in the Book of Acts, simply because they told one lie. Jesus warned that He was to be feared because He has the power to cast the body and soul into Hell. The Apostle Paul said that he persuaded men to come to the Savior because he knew the "terror of the Lord." Read the dreadful judgments of the New Testament's Book of Revelation. That will put the "fear of God" in you, which incidentally is "the beginning of wisdom." Perhaps the most fearful display of His wrath is seen in the Cross of Jesus Christ. His fury so came upon the Messiah, it seems that God enshrouded the face of Jesus in darkness so that creation couldn't gaze upon His unspeakable agony. Whether we like it or not, our God is a consuming fire of holiness. He isn't going to change, so we had better . . . before the Day of Judgment.

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 23, 2001

Answers

Yes, according to your book, that book written by men.

Enjoy!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

...that book written by men.

Here is my post from last week regarding your commentary from today.

"Didn't men write the Bible?"

Absolutely. When you write a letter, do you write the letter, or does the pen? Obviously you do. The pen is merely the instrument you use. God used men as instruments to write His "letter" to humanity. They ranged from kings to common fishermen, but the 66 books of the Bible were all given by inspiration of God. Proof that this Book is supernatural can been seen with a quick study of its prophecies.

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 23, 2001.

Athiest Corner,

Well, I guess the only question here then is whether we should believe in a sick, sadistic monster who some like to refer to as "God".

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

is bringing timothy mcVIE to accontability sadidtic? if some one rapes & murders your ol' g,ran ma--is it sadistic & cruel to bring them to be accountable?? how much more doe's THE GOD of all creation have a right to judge & punish!!and who is mere-man to judge GOD?? but get the WHOLE story before making [ignorant] judgment's.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), May 23, 2001.

AC--

Originally you posted to testify to the concept of a universe Created. Lately you are posting to testify to Christianity as you believe it. Two different things. I accept the first but not the second.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

How well do you know the bible? Take the bible quizzes and find out. (Or, if pressed for time, simply skip the questions of each quiz and go directly to it's answers.)

How well do you know the bible?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 23, 2001.

That is a neat trick! The book was written by God, and how do we know this? It's written in the book! Never mind that the pen was in the hands of the men who actually wrote the book, the book, as written by men, tells us otherwise! Tell me AC, since that is the system we are going to use, how can you be sure that these words I have just penned are not the words of God trying to correct your misunderstanding of him?

Joseph Heller would be so proud!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

Al,

Legitimate interpretations of the Bible lend themselves quite easily to God predestining innocent children and adults to eternal torture. Just to amuse himself.

An example? Well, Anne Frank would be one. And after all the hell she went through on earth just for starters.

Ok -- have it your way. You don't have to call him a "monster" if you don't like that term. Call him whatever makes you feel better.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

OH MY GOD! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

Answers To The "Bible Sex Quiz"

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

1. Who is holiest to God?

Correct answer: D. (A man who avoids sex through castration) "For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off" (Isaiah 56:3-5). "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:12).

2. Which of the following acts does God consider disgraceful?

Correct answer: C. (Having sex with your dead brother's wife but refusing to impregnate her) "And Er, Judah's first born, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also" (Genesis 38:7-10). "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her . . . And if the man like not to take his brother's wife . . . then his brother's wife shall come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face . . . And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed" (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

3. Which of the following may lead to you and all your descendants being cursed?

Correct answer: C. (Accidentally seeing a person naked and telling others about the shameless debauchery) "And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent, And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. . . . And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him, and he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren" (Genesis 9:20-25).

4. Which of the following sex acts is most offensive to God?

Correct answer: A. (Homosexual conduct with visiting angels) "And [the men of the city] called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men [angels] which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after them, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. . . . And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take they wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city" (Genesis 19:5-15). "And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father . . . and the younger arose, and lay with him . . . Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36).

5. Under what circumstances does the Bible say a woman must have her hands cut off for touching her husband's genitals?

Correct answer: D. (When she touches them in an effort to protect her husband from an attacker) "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her" (Deuteronomy 25:11-12).

6. What are God's policies regarding the treatment of women captured in war?

Correct answer: D. (All of the above) "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seeth among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and remain in thine house . . . And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her" (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but shalt utterly destroy them" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

7. What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Correct answer: C. (While love between men is noble, it must never become passionate or the men must be killed) "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (1 Samuel 18:1). "If a man also lieth with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:25-26).

8. Which of the following statements which reflects God's requirement for all women?

Correct answer: D. (All of the above) "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband" (Colossians 3:18-19; see 1 Peter 3:1; Ephesians 5:22). "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed" (Exodus 21:7-8). "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged: they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering" (Leviticus 19:20- 21).

9. Which sexual acts are so egregious that they warrant death?

Correct Answer: B. (Any sexual thoughts about someone to whom one is not married) "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already is his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28). "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10).

10. Since God created only Adam and Eve, how did they have grandchildren?

Correct Answer: C. (Through incest either between Eve and one of her sons or Cain and a sister) "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel" (Genesis 4:1-2). "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch" (Genesis 4:17). "And Amran took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife: and she bare him Aaron and Moses" (Exodus 6:20).

-- (Just h@nging.around), May 23, 2001.

NOW I know why,it say,s in book of Timothy [a warning] about those who think they are teacher's and the DANGER of misrepping GODS WORD!!

taking scripture=out of context,and not rightly didviding the WORD. THRU=DILIGENT-STUDY-LINE UPON-LINE PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT. and how many understand=TYPES & SHADOW'S??

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), May 23, 2001.

if some one rapes & murders your ol' g,ran ma--is it sadistic & cruel to bring them to be accountable??

Here ya go al-d. This is what the bible has to say about accountibility for rape...

What punishment does God mandate for a man who rapes a virgin?

(The rapist and his victim shall be married) "If a man finds a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days Deuteronomy 22:28-29)."

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 23, 2001.

Ok, Al -- would you give me your Christian view on what happened to Anne Frank after she died (assuming she didn't convert, which I'm pretty sure is a safe assumption)?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

I suggest you read the book "Joshua" by Joseph Girzone for a Christian perspective on Judiasm, Eve. As to your question, no man can presume the actions of God, but my faith knows a God that is both merciful and just, even to libertarians.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), May 23, 2001.

shadow, thanks. I'll check it out.

So far, though, I'm just going on what the New Testament seems to clearly say.

Food for thought: God's "mercy" and "justice" can be very different from our own understanding of these terms. Remember 1984's Big Brother? It's been a while, but if I recall correctly, he had a building called The Ministry of Love. It was a torture chamber.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

How very sad there is nothing going on here but Christian bashing. Each one of you should heed Al-d's warnings. You laugh now, but will pay later. It really doent matter if you believe in God or not, but one thin is for sure, you will give account of your actions, like it or not. What is so wrong with living a good life? From the very start nothing but Christian haters here. You should each one be ashamed. Eve almost had caught a little something, but look at what happened to her. Eve about Anne Frank, let God be the judge. Someohow just never felt comfortable saying so and so is hell bound. There is an ultimate authority and deity. That much Im sure of. I wouldnt want to be in all the mockering shoes around here though. What good is all the knowledge each of you possess if you cant channel it to live right?

-- UP (sum@ing.it), May 23, 2001.

UP,

I might have missed something, as I haven't read everything on this thread, but where is the mockery? As far as I can tell, they're all just quoting the Bible itself. And I'm giving my honest interpretation of it, although I'd be happy to share quotes as well. The doctrine of predestination, for example, is all over the New Testament, you know.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

Not true UP!

I don't hate "real" Christians. It's the ass-holier than thou zealots like AC that bug me.

Believe it or not I accepted Christ. That's one of the reasons that AC's brand of self righteousness bothers me so much, AC's brand of preaching does not lead others to Christ, it does the exact opposite. His ass-holier than thou attitude turns honest searchers away from the lessons Jesus taught about tolerance and love.

AC needs to worry about the plank in his own eye, not the speck in his brother's eye.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

Ok, Al -- would you give me your Christian view on what happened to Anne Frank after she died (assuming she didn't convert, which I'm pretty sure is a safe assumption)?

The same place any other non-believer goes.

If you don't believe someone, it means you think that they are a liar. The Bible says that those who don't believe God accuse Him of lying. Martin Luther said that there is no greater insult to God, than not to believe His promises. See Hebrews 11:6.

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 23, 2001.

I am afraid we are reading different New Testaments, Eve. Perhaps you can provide the Biblical citations you feel support the notion of predestination.

And Uncle, people like AC are part of the reason some people detest Christians. AC reminds of me of Kofe, the tax protestor who focuses on a single word of a single case while completely missing the big picture.

If AC is really a Christian (and I have my doubts), he is taking a narrow, fundamentalist approach. Nothing in my reading about the life of Christ supports this interpretation.

-- The Shadow (knows@gain.com), May 23, 2001.

AC,

"The same place any other non-believer goes."

And what goes on at that "place"? Tell me what you feel is happening to her.

"If you don't believe someone, it means you think that they are a liar."

The Koran (Allah) says, in effect, that if you believe Jesus is God you'd go to hell.

So if I believed in Jesus, I assume I'd be calling Allah a liar. And all the other gods as well. Apparently if you don't guess right, then you lose the game.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

shadow,

Eph. 1:4-5; Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:29-30; Acts 13:48; Eph. 2:10; 1 Thess. 5:9; 1 Cor. 7:17; John 6:44; Matt. 20:23; Acts 4:28; Rev. 17:8; 2 Tim. 1:9; Matt. 25:34; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 Pet.2:8; Jude 4; Rev. 13:8; 2 Thess. 2:13; Rom. 9:18; Rom. 12:3.

I can get you more if you'd like; let me know.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2001.

I'll be damned Shadow (pun fully intended), we agree on something. I doubt AC is a Christian, I think he's someone with an axe to grind against Christianity. Why else portray Christians in such a negative light?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 23, 2001.

Hey Jon-

Number 23 is an example of Pascal's Wager.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 23, 2001.

if my heart ,aches & break's for lost soul's[and i am nothing] how much more does GODS heart break??? just pondering here--so don,t get twisted-panties. let's see the bible[book of hebrew's] states that the jew's are [temporarily] blinded by GOD,for the salvation of us gentiles. and that we should NOT be proud. imho--ther is a big-difference between a poor blinded soul--and-1 who HATES the messiah!! the pharisees knew JESUS was no mere-prophet,but HE was upsetting THERE COMFY-RELIGIOUS=control!! I,m with UNK.---just a believer,nobody-special!!!!!!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), May 23, 2001.

Absolutely. When you write a letter, do you write the letter, or does the pen?

You were close. I do quote from a 'source'. I prefer not to cite it at this time. My 'source' is surprizingly similar to yours. The only difference I see is my 'source' has an updated list of questions that total seventy eight in all.

I promise in the coming days to provide it for you though.

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 23, 2001.

Did you read those Biblical citations, Eve, or just cut and paste? I'm having a tough time understanding how you can take a verse like Romans 12:3 and convert it into an argument for predestination. Within Christianity, there has been a long discussion about predestination from Augustine to Pelagius to Calvin to Arminius. If you are a student of Christian theology, you will quickly realize the matter is far from settled.

It was bound to happen, Tarzan, despite my best intentions.

-- The Shadow (knows@gain.com), May 23, 2001.

I'm sure you're as appalled as I.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 23, 2001.

Uh oh AC, you forgot to hide yourself. Now they know who you are.

-- (just@watching.theshow), May 23, 2001.

Just:

The word that you were looking for was "moron"?

Just a guess.

Very,

Bemused

-- Bemused (Bemused@comedy.xxx), May 23, 2001.

moron.

Yes.

Thank you.

Very

Un

Be

Mused.

-- unamused (still@here.for right now), May 23, 2001.

Not as appalled, Tarzan, as I was by your sweeping remarks about the predominance of Aryan depictions of Christ.

-- The Shadow (knows@gain.com), May 23, 2001.

Artistic Depictions of Christ

I know, Tarzan, that you will not confuse European with Aryan.

BBC on Christ

-- The Shadow (knows@gain.com), May 23, 2001.

Wow. Do you have a citation, Shadow?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 23, 2001.

Tar:

By tradition, the shadow has been the Canadian Pacific Railroad.

Do you get that one? This may be a new person. Otherwise contact him directly.

Very,

Bemused

-- Bemused (Bemused@comedy.xxx), May 23, 2001.

Yeah, I get it, but I don't think it makes sense.

Either way, he apparently remembers something I don't remember writing. My curiosity has been piqued.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 23, 2001.

Shadow,

Romans 12:3 ends with "God has allotted to each a measure of faith." (NASB) To the extent that the strength of that faith within us results in salvation, then salvation is predetermined/predestined, at least in part, by God.

I read them all years ago, and I came up with a list back then. I didn't find them all on my own -- I had assistance from a resource. I didn't re-read them for this thread, so it's possible you might find one or more I've changed my position on. Romans 12:3 was one of the less distressful ones to look at, because you can interpret that one as not showing a preconceived bias, whereby some would be predestined for heaven, others for hell.

Yes, you can find anti-predestinarian passages. But the opposing docrines only show that there are contradictions in the Bible. I would think if God inspired it, you'd see only one position or the other. But you see two irreconcilable opposing ones. That's why in 2,000 years nobody's figured it out. And I don't see how anyone ever could, because they're just trying to reconcile A with Not-A.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 24, 2001.

Good post, Eve. Much more direct and concise than I would have been.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 24, 2001.

Eve,

If your desire is to point out apparent contradictions in Bible doctrine, then have at it. But, more than likely, these "contradictions" result from incomplete comprehension of deep subjects.

The first item on God's agenda for any unsaved person is for that person to decide to be saved. God then provides that measure of faith. Romans 10:17. Until then, the weighty doctrines won't make any sense.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), May 24, 2001.

Tar, thanks. :)

Elbow,

Assuming you're a "true believer" I understand you'd have to state it that way. To actually admit of a contradiction in doctrine could be a traumatic, life-changing event that the true believer has to be psychologically ready for. The fact that the Bible indicates Jesus as God and Not-God at the same time will always merely be a “mystery” to the true believer, just as if the Bible had stated that "three equals one" -- which would be and remain a "mystery" as well. Elbow, I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you, as I don't know you. These are my assumptions from your post and my conclusions in general, from my experience. Maybe you ARE open to reasoned argument when it comes to Biblical matters.

Re your last paragraph: They don’t make sense either way. Try to read the predestinarian passages as somehow coming “after” Romans 10:17. Just read the ones from Ephesians and Romans 8:28-30 to begin with. They simply display a doctrine completely unreconcilable with that in the passage you cite. Put the two doctrines together and you have a logical impossibility, where each doctrine essentially wipes out the other, leaving no intelligible communicative effect at all.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 24, 2001.

With all due respect, Eve, theologians far more qualified than you have argued over the issue of predestination for centuries. The argument depends entirely on how you interpret the scriptures. I take it you are reading translations, not the Kione Greek of the New Testament.

Please remember that some Christians feel the Bible are stories inspired by God, not dictated. Language is an imperfect tool of communication at best. I am not surprised that the inspired writings of a wide range of authors over hundreds of years and subject to numerous translations create apparent contradictions.

Consider the earlier example of the seven blind men and the elephant. To each, the elephant is markedly different. The individual descriptions are not inaccurate, but they are incomplete. Each man lacks the vision of the whole, as each man lacks a complete understanding of God.

God transcends logic. You are not the first to note that God seems to do or say one thing and than apparently contradicts Himself. Job made this observation and God had a rather direct reply. (Job Chapter 38)

God is not a puzzle, a question on the MENSA exam or a logic test. If it were possible to prove the existence of God, there would be no need for faith. If one believes in God, Eve, it is a short walk to realizing that the motives, actions and mind of the Creator might not be readily understood. You are indeed, Eve, one of Job's friends.

-- The Shadow (knows@gain.com), May 24, 2001.

Shadow,

If I was truly interested in whether the Bible was true or false, a theologian would be the LAST place I’d look, as their (many of them – certainly not all) life’s work is in working up harmonizations and rationalizations of that which they’re already committed to. What they can’t figure out then becomes a “mystery”.

Please don't view this as bragging (I'm trying to put a point across), but I’ve read some of them, including Aquinas, Bultmann, Spong, Hick, Kung, Crossan, Craig, Barth, C.S. Lewis and enough of Luther, Calvin and St. Augustine to know that if I really wanted to understand ONE Christianity this would be an exercise in complete, utter futility. I mean, just try to reconcile the work of the ones I listed. You’d be hair-pulling with new facial tics, just as I was, soon enough.

I might want to comment on the rest of your post as I get the time, except for one question for now: Which god do we start with?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 24, 2001.

Logic and reason can show you the tail, but it won't help you fully understand the elephant. You will not find God through the reference section of the local library, though it seems you've made a gallant effort.

There is not one Christianity because each person's understanding and knowledge of God is limited, even yours. Bickering theologians are not the result of God's imperfect message, but of man's imperfect understanding. You focus on the differences, Eve, and you miss the point. The way to know God is through the commonalities. You seem to reject God because he doesn't make "sense" or isn't "consistent." Forgive me, Eve, but I think God is somewhat larger than limits of your cognitive framework.

-- The Shadow (knows@gain.com), May 24, 2001.

Shadow,

I'm not rejecting God. In fact, I'm a borderline deist. And I'm not even specifically rejecting the Christian version of God. I have no clue as to the meaning of the Christian version, so in a way, to me, there's nothing there yet to "reject".

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 24, 2001.

Eve,

Romans 8:28-30 *does* come "after" Romans 10:17. One must love God *first.* Predestination applies *only* to the believer. There is just one message preordained of God to the unbeliever: the invitation to accept Christ as Savior. Eve, surely you see the futility of *not* making a decision one way or another. 2 Tim. 3:7 is a terrible epitaph. Jesus said that to enter the Kingdom of God, you must be born again. The transformation does indeed change one's insight.

FYI, a "mystery" is a truth not previously revealed. The term does not mean "something incomprehensible." And there is no contradiction whatsoever regarding Jesus' God-nature. Jesus often affirmed His God- nature, and never denied it. Often He referred to Himself as "Son of Man" to emphasize his humanity, but this does not diminish His God- nature.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), May 24, 2001.

Elbow,

Your statement that predestination applies only to the believer appears to be an attempt at harmonization, and in the context, in a way I really can't blame you for it, as it supports your belief system. By the way, if it was that simple, why haven't the theologians resolved it after 2,000 tears?

Re Jesus as God and man -- you're getting into Trinitarian territory, where one is three and three is one. And you could say there are FOUR involved in a certain version. My mind won't even let me NEAR that one -- any more than it will let me near the assertion that someone knows of a black horse that's white. How can one CHOOSE to believe that there's a black horse that's white? Or that one plus one plus one equals one? I know I can't. That's not how God made me. He gave me REASON. And for him to give that gift to me and tell me at the same time it's a sin to use it, or to use it would make me a non-believer, thus sending me to hell, would be a sadistic god -- not any one I'd look up to. If "Christianity" (whatever that means) was true and I ended up in hell THAT way, I'd simply finally know for sure that God (if he did this) was indeed a monster.

By the way, I'd accepted Christ twice in the past; I just walked away from it as the more I read the less sense it made to me.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 24, 2001.

Tarzan,

What do you know about the number 23?

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), May 24, 2001.

Actually, Eve, God did not give you reason; society did. Were you a feral child, you'd have no more "reason" than bright ape. It is the self-organizing behavior of our species that imparts to you the ability to use logic. (And where does logic come from?) Why is our species self organizing? Flint would have us believe it's nothing more than chance mutation, adaptation and natural selection. He is at a loss, however, to explain how life developed about 400 million years after the Earth was formed, and that the first forms of life were incredibly complex. Even now, Eve, science cannot whip up a bowl of primordial soup and create life from inanimate chemicals.

God didn't give you the ability to read, but I'm sure He wouldn't mind you asking tougher questions of Science.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), May 24, 2001.

The Hedonistic Imperative

-- (TimothyLeary@Church_of_What's_Happening.Now), May 24, 2001.

I know it's the square root of 529. Why do you ask?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 24, 2001.

Shadow,

You've been providing some very good advice.

Eve,

I appreciate your openness. Please understand that I'm not interested in debating "theology" with you. Predestination and Trinitarianism (which I never mentioned) are simply not the subjects to start with, but I thought you deserved one explanation. I don't claim that my answer is the final answer to 2000 years of debate, but I'd invite you to study those passages again in that context. To be frank, you seem to be looking for excuses to support your disbelief. A trivial example: 1 cup milk + 1 egg + 1 cup flour = 1 loaf of bread. Does this "equation" require a mental giant?

I agree with Shadow: God transcends logic. (But I will attempt to make a logical argument anyway.) If it were not so, He would not have offered us salvation. If our nature is flawed by sin, why should we think our reason is flawless? To say the least, it seems self- destructive to "reason" oneself out of heaven and into hell. That certainly ought to show Him!

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), May 24, 2001.

Shadow, Elbow:

Thanks for your replies. Lots of issues, but I'll try to narrow it back down for now. I didn't mean to open it up too wide in the first place.

"To be frank, you seem to be looking for excuses to support your disbelief."

Not any more more than I'd be looking for "excuses" to support my disbelief that there's a Coca-Cola factory on Mars.

"A trivial example: 1 cup milk + 1 egg + 1 cup flour = 1 loaf of bread. Does this "equation" require a mental giant?"

No, but that's not analogous. Try 1 cup milk = 1 loaf of bread. That's analogous to 1 God = 1 Not God.

"To say the least, it seems self- destructive to "reason" oneself out of heaven and into hell. That certainly ought to show Him!"

I wouldn't be concerned at all with "showing Him" anything. Assuming I was aware that a "god" did this, I'm simply describing what I would KNOW. He and all the Christians could continue to insist that He's "good" (or any other euphemism that happens to strike their fancy) for all eternity -- but I would know the truth about Him -- that existence was really governed by a being that was as utterly evil as could possibly be conceived. I'd simply see myself as in an eternal concentration camp (but much worse) for no rational purpose -- set up and governed by a "god" similar to but infinitely worse than Hitler. I repeat: I would KNOW it (unless I was brainwashed not to). And that's all that would matter.

I'm sorry if I've offended some of you by saying this -- but that wasn't my purpose at all. Regarding a "god" of hellfire, this is what I really, honestly believe, though -- to the depths of my soul.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 25, 2001.

I'm curious, Eve, how you can prove the existence of your soul, or was it just a figure speech?

You seem a very cognitive person, and you seem intent on making God and Christianity fit into your cognitive framework. You appear to want God to become a "logical conclusion" and to base your belief on intellect, not faith.

You treat God like any other physical phenomena, like Flint's moon. It is possible to prove the existence of the moon beyond any reasonable doubt. We are quite certain it is not made of green cheese, or that it is a face. The changing view of the moon can be explained in a scientific manner.

God is different.

What some Christians understand is that God is far beyond our cognitive powers to comprehend. How can you expect human abstractions like "good" or "evil" be applied to a divine being? For the sake of discussion, consider God. If He exists, exactly what would qualify you to judge His actions? Where were you, Eve, when the life arose on this planet? Do you think your few decades of reading and learning put you on equal footing with an entity that (allegedly) created the universe? Sounds like the hubris of a John Galt.

As said before, some contend that Hell is nothing more or less than the absence of God. Without God, Eve, you and I are nothing more than sentient insects, utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Without God, we are an accident of evolution, a lucky species that might manage to deface the natural world for a time before being selected for extinction. Without God, we have no unalienable rights. As Flint says, rights are nothing more than legal constructs created by social contract, easily made and easily revoked. How can slavery or killing be "wrong" if we are nothing more than clever tool-making animals?

You have not offended me, Eve. I might suggest, however, that you will not God in your beloved books. Do I think this means you will suffer hellfire? No, I think not finding Him is punishment enough.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), May 25, 2001.

Eve, you've said (I think - can't find the post) that you did believe in God at one time. What changed your mind?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 25, 2001.

Shadow and Maria,

Generally I DO believe in God -- as a deist (sometimes I feel rather agnostic, though). Deists believe in God as a first cause -- a creator; and see Him through His works -- nature, reason, humanity, existence. No other revelation, though; and no focus on any afterlife -- the focus is on THIS life as I believe God would naturally want it.

On this thread I'm just focusing on the only version of God I find really repugnant -- a god who apparently loves to torture completely innocent children, teens and adults -- and eternally, so that's it's not even a punishment -- torture as an end in itself -- who apparently gets his kicks from it. I trust that's no longer the "god" most folks would look up to, though. I know I don't.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 25, 2001.

Now, Eve,

You really are making excuses.

Your words:

>>How can one CHOOSE to believe that there's a black horse that's white? Or that one plus one plus one equals one? I know I can't. <<

To which I offered my trivial example:

>>1 cup milk + 1 egg + 1 cup flour = 1 loaf of bread.<<

You then revert to a completely different issue altogether:

>>That's analogous to 1 God = 1 Not God. <<

Which, in and of itself is a mistaken concept on your part, and unrelated to your original statement.

>>He and all the Christians could continue to insist that He's "good" (or any other euphemism that happens to strike their fancy) for all eternity -- but I would know the truth about Him -- that existence was really governed by a being that was as utterly evil as could possibly be conceived.<<

Why? Because God doesn't fit into your puny box? He is not the God you think He should be, so you reject Him altogether? If you don't like the God of the Bible, exactly where does your concept of God come from? And what makes you think the god of your imagination has any legitimacy?

The questions probably sound harsher than I would like them to be. They are not meant as insults, but as challenges.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), May 25, 2001.

Elbow,

Jesus as God certainly IS related to the Trinity. I just left out the third part -- the Holy Spirit -- for my "God = Not God" point. But pick any of the logical impossibilities you like and we can focus on just that one. But then if you insist God's beyond logic -- then I guess we're at an impasse.

"Why? Because God doesn't fit into your puny box? He is not the God you think He should be, so you reject Him altogether?"

Please see my Coca Cola analogy above.

"If you don't like the God of the Bible, exactly where does your concept of God come from? And what makes you think the god of your imagination has any legitimacy?"

I go as far as my reason will possibly take me. Then, ultimately it's a matter of a leap of faith.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 25, 2001.

Shadow,

How can I prove the existence of my soul? First off, I see my soul as my person, personality, self, etc. -- not necessarily in the religious sense.

Assuming I can't "prove" it, what is the need? I know it exists, as surely as the tree I see out the window, and the other "souls" I communicate with daily. I know it because it's an integral part of me and I know I exist.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 25, 2001.

Mmmmmm.... Tarzan's dick. How come I can't stop thinking about it? And why aren't you guys answerng my questions?!?!?

-- Maria (obse@ssed.com), May 25, 2001.

You have an unsettling way, Eve, of diminishing God. God does not comes in "versions." It is the imperfect understanding of man that creates different versions of God. The fundamentalists have made the profound mistake of reading the scriptures as literal truths. It is this literalism that makes God seem cruel and sadistic.

To me, you are avoiding the issue of reaching towards God and a richer, deeper understanding. God is the deep end of the pool where your feet cannot be planted on the logical bottom. Of course, God is beyond logic. By definition, He must be. God cannot be the Creator of the Universe and then fit into a tiny box of your symbolic logic rules.

As you know your "soul" exists, so I know God exists.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), May 25, 2001.

"How very sad there is nothing going on here but Christian bashing."

How very sad that some xtians here think that they need to engage avowed atheists in not only religious instruction, but also rebuke. Go off to your church and take part in your weekly circle-jerk; you're not needed here.

"Each one of you should heed Al-d's warnings."

And you should kiss my ass.

"You laugh now, but will pay later."

I won't be paying your imaginary deity anything, that's for sure.

"It really doent matter if you believe in God or not, but one thin is for sure, you will give account of your actions, like it or not."

That's not at all for sure. That's a bunch of bullshit that xtians like to use in threatening people to follow their religion. If you won't come peacefully, they will threaten you with eternal damnation. of course, neither they nor their imaginary deity can follow through on that threat, so don't be fooled.

"What is so wrong with living a good life?"

What makes you think that one must believe in an imaginary deity in order to live a good life?

"From the very start nothing but Christian haters here."

I don't hate xtians. But they do piss me off when they start jabbering about how "certain" their line of bullshit is.

"You should each one be ashamed."

You should suck my big, hairy root.

"Someohow just never felt comfortable saying so and so is hell bound."

See? This particular xtian asshole has just threatened a person with damnation for not following his specific prescription for getting into the imaginary afterlife. You can see them do this a lot if you watch.

"There is an ultimate authority and deity."

No. There is not.

"That much Im sure of."

Sure of what you cannot prove. Uh huh. I'm equally sure that you've simply been frightened or talked into complying with someone else's religion, or a combination of frightened and talked into it.

"I wouldnt want to be in all the mockering shoes around here though."

Surprise, dipshit. You're not.

"What good is all the knowledge each of you possess if you cant channel it to live right?"

How do you know how anyone here lives, you interminably stupid asshole?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), May 25, 2001.

Quite a synopsis there already. But coming from the largest forum idiot who is most likely ------ fill in the blank I am not surprised. Truth of the matter is you can no more disprove his/her theory than they can prove it accept by faith. At least they offered something. You offered nothing but dribble, and drunken dribble at that.

-- DR ben (ben@crazy.bynow), May 25, 2001.

Eve,

>>Jesus as God certainly IS related to the Trinity. <<

Of *course*, Eve. But your "1 God = 1 Not God" implies that you are insisting that Jesus is Not God. That is first your error. Yes, as with every doctrine, there are scholars who will agree with you, but the weight of scripture is against them. Your second error is confusing the above equation with 1+1+1=1. Surely you see they are not equivalent.

>>But then if you insist God's beyond logic -- then I guess we're at an impasse. <<

Semantic problem. God is not the author of confusion. It is my *opinion* that God transcends logic; that is, His reasons, and reasoning are far above, and far more encompassing, and His judgement is much more just, than what we call logic. The impasse, Eve, is not "illogic." It is your tendency to label something as irreconcilable even where no real difficulty exists. You strain at a gnat.

And, forgive my density, ;-) but I just don't understand how your responses addressed my questions. Could you elaborate?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), May 25, 2001.

Shadow,

“To me, you are avoiding the issue of reaching towards God and a richer, deeper understanding.”

I just don't see it that way at all. But I’m afraid you may be avoiding the issue of reaching and embracing life fully and completely – the way I think God would want you to -- you know -- without having to be concerned about Him. I mean, if He (and His afterlife) exists, there'd be plenty of time for that later.

Elbow,

I do understand the equations are different from each other. My mind won’t accept any of it, though. Seriously. I can’t force myself to believe that which I truly see as logically impossible.

“…I just don't understand how your responses addressed my questions. Could you elaborate?”

I’m sorry, Elbow; I didn’t mean to avoid your questions. But this thread has gotten so long, would you mind repeating whatever I didn’t answer, one at a time, and I’ll be more than happy to respond as directly as I can. And that way, we can focus all our energies on that one point before we go on. And, if you would, please start with what you regard as the most important question. Thanks.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 25, 2001.

No one can accuse you of a lack of ego, Eve. What do you know, exactly, about how I reach and embrace life? And on what basis do you claim this insight into what God wants from me? At one moment you cannot fit God into your logic box, the next you are ready to provide guidance to me based on your unique knowledge of what the Creator wants from me. While I have no wish to offend you, Eve, I find the contradiction quite amusing.

I have no quarrel with you and wish you well trying to fold God into a shape that fits your philosophy. I have seen the "Man as God" of your idol Ayn Rand and others. I have seen the work of the ubermensch, Eve, and find far less to fear from my diety. Be well.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), May 25, 2001.

Shadow,

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I was only kind of surmising back atcha, in response to your assuming I was avoiding God. I can assure you, I'm not "avoiding" anything of the sort. Believe it or not, you're getting the real me here, who's made tremendous efforts in trying to understand things, including God. There's no way I have it all figured out; I'm only human and just doing the best I can. But if you really knew me, you'd know I wasn't intentionally avoiding anything. In any case, I appreciate your input in general. And you be well, too.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 26, 2001.

"Quite a synopsis there already."

Glad you liked it. Drop your cash offering in my hat as it's passed around.

"But coming from the largest forum idiot who is most likely ------ fill in the blank I am not surprised."

Who I am is a total mystery to you.

"Truth of the matter is you can no more disprove his/her theory than they can prove it accept by faith."

If they can't prove it, then I am under no obligation to DISprove it. If I can't prove that the world is borne on the back of a giant tortoise, then you wouldn't really need to disprove it, would you? Conversely, since you cannot prove the existence of your imaginary deity, the truth of the matter is that I don't HAVE to disprove anything that poster said, fuckhead.

"At least they offered something."

They offered up a big steaming plate of bullshit. At least that's SOMETHING, huh? You are easily impressed, Dr. Ben. BTW, are you related to the guy who sells rice?

"You offered nothing but dribble, and drunken dribble at that."

I'd rather be served provable drivel than impossible bullshit. And I never drink and post, because innocent people could get hurt that way. Of course, if you differ with anything I have said, I invite you to prove your points. If you can't prove them, though, then KISS MY ATHEIST ASS.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), May 26, 2001.

Kiss your ass? Now that would not be a challenge,as it seems to be as large as your mouth. Since we are fast becoming friends would you mind doing me a small favor, large in form? Kiss your own ass. Tarzan.

-- and we know it (not@the.real you), May 26, 2001.

Chuckle! You KNOW your imaginary deity exists, which, of course, it does not. And you KNOW I am Tarzan, which, of course, I am not. You might be surprised if you knew who I really was, but I am definitely not Tarzan.

Be sure to turn the other cheek, trolling buttplug, because your imaginary deity commands it. Whether you turn your ass cheek or your face cheek matters not to me, as I shall kiss neither.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), May 26, 2001.

Eve,

>>I do understand the equations are different from each other. My mind won’t accept any of it, though. Seriously. I can’t force myself to believe that which I truly see as logically impossible. <<

Your phrasing is interesting. Did you have to force yourself to believe in electrons? Have you ever seen an electron? Do you understand the physics that describes the nature of an electron? Is it "logical" that electrons behave like particles *and* waves? Is that reason enough to deny that electrons exist? Come on. You accept them as truth because you can see the results, not because you understand their nature.

There are lots of things in God's creation that we accept that way. Why would you *expect* God's nature to be definable in terms you would understand? Is your expectation logical? Why is this expectation a pivotal condition to your belief in God?

You insist, in essence: "If I cannot logically comprehend the nature of God as the Bible describes it, then I cannot accept the existence of that God."

Eve, could you describe color to a blind person? Do you think that *maybe* the problem isn't "logical impossibilities" regarding our perception of the nature of God, but merely limited capacity on our part?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), May 26, 2001.

Elbow,

[Did you have to force yourself to believe in electrons? Have you ever seen an electron? Do you understand the physics that describes the nature of an electron? Is it "logical" that electrons behave like particles *and* waves?]

I'm no physicist, but aren't we here just talking about the position versus the path of a particle?

[Why is this expectation (of logic) a pivotal condition to your belief in God?]

It isn't. I'm a deist, as I described above. But even there, I go as far as I can go, logically. For example, my idea of God (when I feel religious) equates to a First Cause of existence and/or a designer, which I can accept as at least reasonable, if not logically provable. Then again, it's tough to argue it, as the next question would be -- "who made God?"

[You insist, in essence: "If I cannot logically comprehend the nature of God as the Bible describes it, then I cannot accept the existence of that God."]

It's not principally that I can't logically comprehend it, although that's true. Essentially it's that I see the Christian God's "nature" as the Bible describes it, as logically impossible (e.g., the Trinity, Jesus as both fully man and fully God, etc.).

[Eve, could you describe color to a blind person? Do you think that *maybe* the problem isn't "logical impossibilities" regarding our perception of the nature of God, but merely limited capacity on our part?]

I can't accept that, because once I do, if someone insists "There's a city of gremlins in the center of Jupiter, and it's only your limited capacity that leads you to doubt this", how do I respond?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 26, 2001.

Eve, you and CD made it clear on another thread recently that the two of you believe there is no such thing as altruism, and that the only way people can react to other people is with subjective self- interest. I'd say you've already closed your mind off to objectivity and love at some point in the past.

True, there are some hypocrites out there who claim to represent God when in fact they don't. That's no excuse though for anyone to stop what should be a daily quest to understand in what ways we can become better people.

-- Love and (objectivity@do.exist), May 26, 2001.

"There will always be misunderstandings; words will be said. There will always be somebody to carry tales, but Jesus is there to teach us how to love." -- Mother Teresa

-- helen (maybe@some.time), May 26, 2001.

Love,

[Eve, you and CD made it clear on another thread recently that the two of you believe there is no such thing as altruism,]

In altruism's pure sense -- to love altruistically would be to love selflessly; e.g., to love an enemy. And it's true -- I don't know how someone can do this -- force an emotion where none exists.

[and that the only way people can react to other people is with subjective self- interest.]

Not true. You have to see that it somehow comports with your long range self-interest (or not in conflict with it) in order for an action to truly be in your self-interest. There's lots I can and should add here, but I recall putting a lot of energy into that thread. And we're getting off topic. But if you wish, I'll try to answer your questions. Let me know if you seriously want to pursue this and maybe we can set this up on another thread.

All the rest of your suppositions about me are the precise opposite of the truth. Are you serious? If so, I definitely need an elaboration, as I really have no clue where you're coming from on this.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 26, 2001.

Eve,

>>[Did you have to force yourself to believe in electrons? Have you ever seen an electron? Do you understand the physics that describes the nature of an electron? Is it "logical" that electrons behave like particles *and* waves?]

I'm no physicist, but aren't we here just talking about the position versus the path of a particle? <<

No, that's wrong. I fear that you've missed the point: The properties of many physical things appear to be illogical in nature. Personally, I find transparent solids to be illogical. So then, metaphysical subjects, which can at best only be described for us in analogical terms, will include items that appear illogical (to some of us) as well. As I said before, the logic is not a showstopper.

>>[You insist, in essence: "If I cannot logically comprehend the nature of God as the Bible describes it, then I cannot accept the existence of that God."]

It's not principally that I can't logically comprehend it, although that's true. Essentially it's that I see the Christian God's "nature" as the Bible describes it, as logically impossible (e.g., the Trinity, Jesus as both fully man and fully God, etc.). <<

????? Pardon me, Eve, but you'll have to explain how your statement differs from mine.

>>[Eve, could you describe color to a blind person? Do you think that *maybe* the problem isn't "logical impossibilities" regarding our perception of the nature of God, but merely limited capacity on our part?]

I can't accept that, because once I do, if someone insists "There's a city of gremlins in the center of Jupiter, and it's only your limited capacity that leads you to doubt this", how do I respond? <<

Well, Eve, you can respond like a stubborn blind man who continues to insist that color does not exist because no amount of explanation makes logical sense to him, or you can acknowledge that there are things beyond your logical (or intuitive or spiritual) capacities. Your concept of "God" appears to be quite limited. I don't want this to sound as if I'm belittling you, but *I* find it ironic that Jesus, as God-as-Man, as God-as-friend, does not strike a chord with your limitations.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), May 27, 2001.

Elbow,

[Personally, I find transparent solids to be illogical.]

So since you believe in a window or ice, all systems are "go" in terms of potential things to believe in? I'm sorry, but I just don't follow you at all here.

Next, regarding our statements that appeared the same to you: They WERE almost the same, but I felt your wording carried with it a subtle presupposition that I had to disprove; so I rephrased it in what I felt to be a more neutral manner. In any case, if you feel they're the same, may I assume you'd have no problem using my wording? If so, let's use mine and go from there.

[Well, Eve, you can respond like a stubborn blind man...]

I can easily respond in the same way about you, Elbow. After all, you're denying MY God. But I respect your finding your own path to God, even though I disagree. It seems to work for you, and that's ok.

Jesus, as you describe him, and as normally understood, doesn't strike any chord at all with me, because I see him entwined with too many logical contradictions to accept as other than a man -- a teacher or wandering sage -- who once probably existed, and whom man turned into a god. And plenty of his teachings were contradictory as well. If you need examples, we can start with the sermon on the mount. Let me know.

I will say, though, that the Jehovah Witnesses see Jesus as something of an intermediary between man and God, which certainly makes more sense than the Trinity, which was invented in the third century or so, to overcome a perceived violation of one of the Ten Commandments ("no other gods before me").

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 28, 2001.

Eve,

>>[Personally, I find transparent solids to be illogical.]

So since you believe in a window or ice, all systems are "go" in terms of potential things to believe in? I'm sorry, but I just don't follow you at all here.<<

I am *not* saying that anything is believable if it is illogical. I'm saying it doesn't make sense for me to *disbelieve* in transparent solids just because I find them to be intuitively illogical. The problem is not the logic involved; the problem is with my pre- conceived notions. I'm saying that it may appear to you that a Triune God is illogical to the extent that you feel you must reject Him. But since this is by definition a metaphysical subject, the terms used to describe His nature cannot be applied adequately to logic.

>>[Well, Eve, you can respond like a stubborn blind man...]

I can easily respond in the same way about you, Elbow. After all, you're denying MY God. <<

Not deliberately, Eve. You've said your a deist. That's all I know. And the only thought I've been trying to get across is that your rejection of some Biblical concepts (as illogical) is itself illogical. Your logic is insufficient to the task.

>>I will say, though, that the Jehovah Witnesses see Jesus as something of an intermediary between man and God...<<

1 Tim. 2:5 affirms that. But Jesus stands on both sides of the mediation, because no "natural" man has the qualifications.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), May 29, 2001.