Kevin Anderson

Just out of curiosity, and for the record theres probably some huge flaw in my question that I'm overlooking xD.

A: Is God omniscient?

1: If he isn't, disregaurd this message.

2: If he is, read on!

B: How can God (assuming he's omniscient -all knowing-) know anything?

1: If God was before everything, the Father, Creator. Nothing else existed with him?

A: How could God know anything? Does it say God used his power to become omniscient? What was there to know around him, if there was nothing?

1: An example, a man walking in the desert, sees sand, he feels the sand, and finds it to be rather pleasent, or smooth, but with a burning sensation, and then feels a cactus. He learns that cactus invokes a sensation of pain to the nerves, and is less pleasent compared to sand. If God existed in the void of the universe, he couldn't learn anything, because there'd be nothing to compare anything else to. There wasn't even a 'thing' in existence, but him. So how did he establish language?

A: How can God learn anything if he existed in the void of space. He couldn't be omnipotent if he didn't know how to use his powers (By articulating his thoughts and making his thoughts reality), and he couldn't be omniscient if there was nothing to learn (Because he existed in the void of the universe which was nothing but him). How did he create us? Did he, from the instance of his own creation, automatically speak Latin, know what Man was going to look like, and so on and so forth?? Quoting the Bible, to an extent. God said "Let there be light" (right?) And light automatically existed. How could God know anything about what doesn't exist? How could he of even learned words?

I probably sound a little insane xD. I'm just curious. After thinking about '1984' where the gov't limits thoughts, by diminishing their vocabulary, and consequently being unable to express the hatred of their gov't, even in thought. How could God use his powers if he isn't able to think.

So I've probably rephrased the same question through my whole rant/question.

What I'd like to know is:

1: is God Omniscient

2: How could God say anything, when he was before everything. Did he instantly learn to speak languages from the moement of his own creation?

3: How did God make 'light' when it never existed before that point in time.

As a note: I do not refer to Unnatural and Natural as what society says they are. I refer to them as either being able to happen, or not being able to happen.

What is wrong with homosexuality? It's completely natural. Infact, everything that occurs is natural, or else why would it occur?

Take for example, you don't see the Sun dancing around like in the Mickey Mouse Black and White cartoons, dancing in it's place. That's unnatural, or else it would of happened on it's own. Another example is that you don't see people walking upside down in mid-air (maybe in the future by development) because it isn't natural. However, you do see modern technology, why? It's in our nature to make our lives simpler and more efficient. You see strawberries and apples growing from the ground, why they exist?, I don't know, but I conclude they are natural because they exist.

Summary: What CAN [Or has the potential to] happen IS natural

Or put it this way, Humans have the right to love, do they not? So what universal law of NATURE (Not the Bible) says that Homosexuality is unatural?. Theres no natural law that says we cannot be attracted to someone of the same sex, is there?

Homosexuality is a natural occurence in people. We have the potential to be gay, lesbian, bi, pansexual, whatever, just as we have the potential to be straight. Once again, because it can occur (I.E. Curiosity of a young guy fooling around with another), it's logically natural for someone to be curious, and theres no universal law in nature that forbades the ability to find another person of the same sex attractive. Once again, Homosexuality is natural, because it has the possibiliy of happening in this world, and it has!

So my question is, why does the Bible lie, saying it is not natural? Just because Humans form a society does not make sexuality anyless natural, so why shouldn't we be given the same rights in that society as you? Just because God told a bunch of people to write a book condeming it, does not make it anyless natural. Why do you argue that our actions are an abomination? They're just as natural as you and I breathing. Why does religion (Not all of them of course, but some) go against the nature of human beings in some cases?

Is that the Bible?

Why was it made?

Why did they change it? The Bible isn't an Ipod, you don't upgrade it. (I.E. Old/New Testament)

What is the difference / purpose of both? Seems pretty redundant to me.

Unless....?

Is there no other way to prove the validity of the Bible? Is God's word the only thread that ties together this book?

Oh and if you say God's word is real, don't say the Bible is proof of it. If you say the Bible is accurate and valid, I would like proof aside from 'It was God's message' Or whatever. UNLESS you can come up with something that gives it validity.

I'm not dissing Christianity, but I'm just curious if theres another way Christians could theoretically prove it. So if you can only think of proof which I mentioned up above, please don't comment. I don't want to sort through the crud you people post that I specifically asked NOT to recieve.

And no, I don't want non-believers to share their obvious opinion of how God is some magic man in the sky, mystic intangible hand, invisible ghost, etc. So people like this, please don't post either.

Thanks!

I'm writing my senior research paper, and I need 3 types of sources. I have many books, but some are different then others. For example, I am using a book called 'Aging with Grace, what the Nun study teaches us about leading longer, healthier, and more meaningful lives'. The person writing it was literally doing a study on the nuns, and it seems to narrate these events. Is that more of a Journal than a book? Another book I am using is a collaborated (thats a word?) effort of near 20 authors, each having their own input. Is that a different source? And another one is 'You're not old until your ninety... best to be prepared however' is partly narrating the authors life. Another is an internet article (Does that mean it is a website or an article?) Thankyou!

First, don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking Christianity, just Fireball.

All the questions you respond to, compiled into one statement, could be "Praise Jesus!"

If someone asks for Proof, "Praise Jesus!"

If someone asks for directions to the bathroom "Praise Jesus!"

If I was giving birth "Praise Jesus!"

FEFNEF fefef4598#? "Priase Jesus!"

"Praise Jesus!" is the equivalanet of anything you say, even in questions concerning proof. DO YOU KNOW WHAT PROOF IS?

Proof is not the Bible, if the Bible is the thing that is having it's existence questioned, unless the Bible can prove it's own origin, that it came from God.

Proof comes then from an outside source; considering your a walking Bible with a mouth inbetween the covers of your book, your words are the Bibles.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT PROOF IS?

Take Brave New World for example (which will be my main source and driving force).

And for the record, Religion seems to be the only concept capable of unifying the world without dumbing the people down with drugs, or making them fear eachother in a modern conception of a totalitatarian government.. It's just that there's too many religions.

Why can't we gradually become distopian, like the Brave New World, with a religion. Conditioned to believe in something, where it becomes natural. (Not saying the religion has to be christianity) I mean, once the rest of the people with a concious mind are wiped out, save for the (ideally) morally wise, ethical, and compassionate controllers) Whats the big problem with it? I mean, ya, it's literally stands against everything the modern man is used to, but wouldn't it help unify the world? The belief of freedom is changeable, it was not thought of much back in the old days, not popularly at least, and it could be viewed differently 100 years from now. I'm not saying we'd be forced into church every day, just raised with the right morals like the people in Brave New World are. To address the irregular people that might exist, they could be sent to a prison, and be treated as nice as we would in that ideal world.

Don't say the idea of Religion is mad, and that this type of Gov't is awful.

A: Religion is the greatest force capable of unifying the world, if a religion was made that was fair and equal all around

B: Totalitarian Gov't Communist Gov't Ect. Need reforms yes, but to be honest they aren't bad, it's just the people that use them are. They aren't conditioned right, so to speak, and that problem would be eliminated if we were conditioned like in Brave New World. Was the real problem of the U.S.S.R. the communist gov't? Or the people that abused the Gov't to rule it unjustly?

So I guess the real question im asking, much like the title. Is this idea of a religious based gov't that is NOT CORRUPT, much like all of you will say it would be, and just a plausable idea?

Sorry if my ideas go from place to place without transition and make no sense. :P

And Fireball, if you screech at me with your naggy text about how God is the only religion, right or wrong, Im going to die on the inside.

Why do we ask these questions (take this one, for example) Where A: 30% of you will give good answers. B: 40% of you will give stupid, irrelavent, or comments based off of one phrase you read and disapprove. C: 9% Banned / Removed Comments. D: 1% Gibberish that looks like you typed it with a seizure?..

When we have Google? ......

My friend is recommending me to this one guy she knows, who I know nothing about. This person's best friend is also going to introduce me to him, and he's excited to meet me. I have no idea what to say to this person, I mean to be specific, I would probably say "Hi" and joke around a little, but when it comes to the real conversation, im not sure what to say.. I know most of it will probably come naturally, and im just over reacting, but does anyone have suggestions of things to talk about, as sort of a back-up? To avoid that horrible awkward silence XD.

Thanks,

Me.

Christianity, Athiesm, Mormonism, Buddhusim, Satanism, Ect..

I am Athiest myself, and I also have attacked religion before, but I just wanted to think about Why?

Whats the big deal with letting me believe what I want, or my neighbors believing what they want?

I mean every religion is good. (Even Satanism, according to what I have read, in that he wants to help us all, just like every other God, which of course conflicts with christianity directly).

Every religion has something to contribute to society.

For example, I love music, espcecially Dies Irae by Verdi, although Dies Irae is a gregorian text.

I love 'Uaxuctum' by Giaccitno Scelsi, based off of eastern philosihpy.

I love the stories of Greek endeavors like Odysseus.

I even love the story behind LOTR (Silmarillion, which, i compare to the Bible in that it was written by mankind, so if people became serious Lotr fans, they could even attempt making that a religion, just like Cthluisim.)

I like the Pagan view of loving the Earth, like it was your home (and it is.)

I like that all religions promote good moral, and ethics, and have something valuable to teach you.

Im sure im not the only one that can't find nit picky things about each religion they like and dislike,

but the question is, why don't we appreciate all religions? (Not saying you have to believe in them, but just accept that they're as real to it's believers as your religion is to you. (not sure if that sentence made sense.) No troll answers please, I asked a very long question, and Im not interested in you picking out one sentence you don't like and only responding to that, nor am I interested in reading stupid answers that are irrelevant, or answers that attack another religion. <--- All of these will be spam and reported.