• A basic rule of language

    A basic rule of language is that context defines meaning. Some people use the word 'bad' to mean 'good', and 'good' to mean 'mediocre'. The context is more important than the dictionary. Dictionaries are descriptive of common usage, not prescriptive of how words are allowed to be used. Effectively you are arguing that things like anthropopathy or anthropomorphisms can not exist, which is just absurd. The passage is an example of antrhopopathy according to scholars. You can play dumb and pretend that you just can't understand, or you can be honest. Considering what's at stake, you should probably start being honest with yourself.

  • If I didn't...

    Re:"You keep bringing up Compatibilism. It isn't foresight. "

    If I didn't keep bringing it up, you would keep pretending it didn't exist. When you say "This is a logical fact that cannot be disputed by anyone even mildly oriented with reason.", you seem to pretend that the philosophers who hold/held to compatibilism are not even mildly oriented with reason. Don't pretend that you have some sort of intellectual high ground over professors of philosophy more acquainted with reason than you, by saying they aren't even mildly oriented with reason. If You were being reasonable, you wouldn't complain that God having mercy by paying for sins is unjust(complaining that people should be responsible for their own sins), and then turn around and say God is unmerciful for holding some accountable for their sins when he could have saved them. It's the old "damned if he do, damned if he don't". If he saves, he's called unjust. If he gives justice, he's called unmerciful. If he saves some and gives justice to others, he's called unjust and unmerciful. Can you see the problem here?

    Re:"There is also another school of thought,"

    My point exactly, but any school of thought different from yours is just viewed by you as idiotic and not possibly having any reason behind it even when promoted by philosophers.

    Re:"But both of these theories do not claim to be foresight. ... Determinism wouldn't be much of a super-power for Yahweh. It isn't foresight in the slightest and doesn't even claim a set future."

    I agree that foreknowledge is not itself determinism, neither is naturalistic materialism. I think you are using a sort of category error when contrasting foreknowledge with determinism. The objection is that God's knowledge of our future determines our future, thereby removing some sort of freedom and culpability from us. The same problem occurs in determinism, hence the need for compatibilism. You can't use a double standard and say that compatibilism works for determinsim, but not for theological determinism, because the issue affecting both of them is the same, the definition of freedom.

    Re:"Determinism wouldn't be much of a super-power for Yahweh. It isn't foresight in the slightest and doesn't even claim a set future."

    You're confusing an application within determinism with determinism itself. Determinism isn't an ability that God or anyone would have, it's the idea that all events are the result of prior determiners. Whether the logically prior determiner is physical laws or foreknowledge, is irrelevant to the problem suggested, as it is to the solution as well. If the future wasn't determined in determinism, compatibilism would never have been thought up. Compatibilism doesn't say that we can potentially choose differently than we will choose and potentially make a different future(that would be libertarian free will, which is in opposition to compatibilism), compatibilism merely says that we choose according to our predetermined desires, but that they are still our desires in that we fully agree with them consciously and with our reason and do not object to them. Compatibilism says that we are free to act as we please even though we can not actually do other than what we will do, thus compatibilism's definition of freedom is different than libertarianism's(obviously not referring to the political position here).

    "Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have.[4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilistic

    Your question merely demonstrates that you don't understand compatibilism.

  • ...

    re:" This is a logical fact that cannot be disputed by anyone even mildly oriented with reason. Let me be clear, a set future and free agency cannot exist at the same time. "

    "Compatibilism was championed by the ancient Greek Stoics and early modern philosophers like David Hume and Thomas Hobbes. Contemporary compatibilists range from the philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, particularly in his works Elbow Room (1984) and Freedom Evolves (2003), to the existentialist philosopher Frithjof Bergmann."

    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

    Just keep pretending the answers don't exist...

  • More Schaeffer

    "If there is no absolute by which to judge society, society is absolute." - Francis Schaeffer

  • I think you misunderstand the verse.

    I think you misunderstand the verse. The idea of regret in that verse is an example of anthropopathy, and doesn't convey that God made a mistake, but rather that man had changed.

    It's also translated this way in the (ABP) Genesis 6:6 "and God pondered that he made the man upon the earth, and he considered it"

    Consider the various commentaries on the verse by bible scholars:

    Geneva Bible footnotes: "God never repents, but he speaks in human terms, because he destroyed him, and in a way denied him as his creature."

    Hawker: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
    By this expression, cannot be meant any change in the mind of God, but only a change in the circumstances of his providence towards men, according to their conduct. See 1Sa_15:11-29; Mal_3:6; Num_23:19; Jas_1:17"

    Gill: "Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth,.... Because of the wickedness of man, the wickedness of his heart, and the wickedness of his life and conversation, which was so general, and increased to such a degree, that it was intolerable; wherefore God could have wished, as it were, that he had never made him, since he proved so bad; not that repentance, properly speaking, can fall upon God, for he never changes his mind or alters his purposes, though he sometimes changes the course and dispensations of his providence. This is speaking by an anthropopathy, after the manner of men, because God determined to do, and did something similar to men, when they repent of anything: as a potter, when he has formed a vessel that does not please him, and he repents that he has made it, he takes it and breaks it in pieces; and so God, because of man's wickedness, and to show his aversion to it, and displicency at it, repented of his making him; that is, he resolved within himself to destroy him, as in the next verse, which explains this"

    Barnes: "And it repented the Lord - that he had made man. The Scripture is frank and unreserved; some people would say, imprudent or regardless of misconstruction, in its statements of truth. Repentance ascribed to the Lord seems to imply wavering or change of purpose in the Eternal Self-existent One. But the sublime dictate of the inspired word is, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good?” Num_23:19. In sooth, every act here recorded - the observation, the resolve, the exception - seems equally with the repentance to jar with the unchangeableness of God. To go to the root of the matter, every act of the divine will, of creative power, or of interference with the order of nature, seems at variance with inflexibility of purpose. But, in the first place, man has a finite mind and a limited sphere of observation, and therefore is not able to conceive or express thoughts or acts exactly as they are in God, but only as they are in himself. Secondly, God is a spirit, and therefore has the attributes of personality, freedom, and holiness; and the passage before us is designed to set forth these in all the reality of their action, and thereby to distinguish the freedom of the eternal mind from the fatalism of inert matter. Hence, thirdly, these statements represent real processes of the Divine Spirit, analogous at least to those of the human. And, lastly, to verify this representation, it is not necessary that we should be able to comprehend or construe to ourselves in all its practical detail that sublime harmony which subsists between the liberty and the immutability of God. That change of state which is essential to will, liberty, and activity, may be, for aught we know, and from what we know must be, in profound unison with the eternity of the divine purpose."

    Wesley: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man upon the earth - That he had made a creature of such noble powers, and had put him on this earth, which he built and furnished on purpose to be a comfortable habitation for him; and it grieved him at his heart - These are expressions after the manner of men, and must be understood so as not to reflect upon God's immutability or felicity. It doth not speak any passion or uneasiness in God, nothing can create disturbance to the eternal mind; but it speaks his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners: neither doth it speak any change of God's mind; for with him there is no variableness; but it speaks a change of his way. When God had made man upright, he rested and was refreshed, Exo_31:17. and his way towards him was such as shewed him well pleased with the work of his own hands; but now man was apostatized, he could not do otherwise, but shew himself displeased; so that the change was in man, not in God."

  • You obviously have no idea...

    You obviously have no idea where the bible comes from or what inspiration of scripture means. The Bible was inspired in Greek and Hebrew. English translations are merely translations of the inspired text. The translation process is not inspired. By critiquing an English translation of a Hebrew text, I'm not adding to the Hebrew text, I'm comparing an English translation with the Hebrew language. By looking at a Hebrew dictionary, I'm not adding to the Hebrew text. Even the early church fathers consulted books in their disputes with early anti-christians. The Bible itself quotes non-scriptural books when presenting arguments, that doesn't mean it's adding them to the list of canonical books. The bible says to rightly divide it, to rightly interpret it, and understanding the original language and grammar only adds to that. 2Ti_2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." If anyone is adding words, it's you, by adding the idea of sex to a phrase which means "evil in the eyes of".

    If God allows the deceptive to deceive themselves, that doesn't mean that God is deceptive, that just means that he's not restraining some people from their own errors. The fact that some are able to make sense out of God's communication validates God's communication as efficacious.

    How ironic that when you say you are not hellbent on making the bible look as bad as possible, you ignore the contextual linguistic answer I've provided supported by at least two bible translations and the Hebrew language, and then proceed to bring up a different complaint which has already been answered numerous times at the DP. It seems like it's been about 3 to 5 times that I've answered how people misread the text to import this baby torture idea, and others have answered it here as well, but hellbent people don't care about answers, just like the news media doesn't care that there's a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, they just have their own agenda for smearing and continually call Ron Paul an isolationist. I've even seen people trying to call Rand Paul an isolationist. Be honest for a change.

    It's notable that on top of frequently misrepresenting what the bible says (as you do here with babies and such), you are continually presumptuous by saying "God would have done this or that". What makes you know what God would have done? You assume that your presumptions are the be all and end all of what is possible, that God can not possibly know more than you about any given situation, therefore God must conform to your preferential ideas in any given situation.

  • Bible software

    Bible software often comes with commentaries. One resource is called the "treasury of scriptural knowledge", and for any verse in the Bible that you click on, it will show a list of verses related to different parts of the selected verse. Regarding the 'please not' phrase in that verse, it says: "please not: Heb. be evil in the eyes of, etc. Gen_28:8; Jdg_14:3; 1Sa_8:6, 1Sa_18:8"

    So it shows that the Hebrew words mean "be evil in the eyes of", and then shows references where the same Hebrew word is used so that you can get a better picture of how the word is used by seeing it in different contexts.

    Gills commentary also describes it as being "evil in the eyes of". When it says she pleases him not, it's not talking about her action, it's talking about the masters view of her.

    To assume that it's referring to her pleasing her master sexually is just eisegesis, importing an idea into the text that isn't there.

    The prior verse says that her intended purpose was "to be a maidservant". And the Hebrew word for betrothed doesn't always speak of marriage, the word is defined as follows:

    1) to fix, appoint, assemble, meet, set, betroth
    1a) (Qal) to appoint, assign, designate
    1b) (Niphal)
    1b1) to meet
    1b2) to meet by appointment
    1b3) to gather, assemble by appointment
    1c) (Hiphil) to cause to meet
    1d) (Hophal) to be set, be placed before, be fixed

    But since the prior verse says her purpose is to be a maidservant rather than a wife, then "designation" would seem a more appropriate understanding.

    Also, when it says "If he takes another wife to himself"
    the word "wife" is added, and is not in the original text. You can tell by the text type. Some bibles use italics or brackets for added words, my bible software uses greyed out text.

    Here's another translation that adds the word 'woman' instead of wife:

    (YLT) Exodus 21:10 `"If another woman he take for him, her food, her covering, and her habitation, he doth not withdraw;"

    Notice also how 'marital rights' is translated as 'habitation' in that version. That's because the Hebrew word means 'cohabitation'.
    In the context of marriage it might mean 'conjugal rights', but if the context is already determined to be for the purpose of a maidservant, then it should be translated as cohabitation like in the above version. The ABP translates it as 'companionship' rather than 'habitation', and uses 'woman' instead of 'wife' as well.

    Why are you so bent on trying to make the Bible look as bad as possible? Do you feel you are really handling the Bible honestly when you always read it in the worst possible way?

    Re: "If God wanted a narrower interpretation He would have made it more explicit "

    How do you know what God would do? Why is God assumed to act according to your preferences?

  • nice quote

    nice quote from Luther.

    I thought this was from RC Sr.:

  • where?

    Where does it say Jewish women were brainwashed from birth to accept their husbands sexual advances and not fight back? Where does it say women who objected were raped door-to-door? Where does it say that all Jewish women were slaves? Why assume that Jewish women didn't want to be with their husbands? There were a different set of values, having children was a much more desirable thing with them than it is today. Can you show any evidence of a system were women were forced into a marriage they didn't want? "Designating a servant for a son" doesn't necessarily communicate that the servant didn't choose the son. It may have more to do with parental approval. The book of Ruth describes a woman wooing a man, and although there were social limits to how they could operate, there was still a willful desire from both parties for their marriage. Why assume the worst? The passage you quote mentions regulations meant to limit the abuses of a system of the time. You seem to be looking at the Hebrew system of indentured service anachronistically as if it was comparable to slavery under the British empire and America. But there were no prisons in the Hebrew system, so debts for crimes were often paid with service instead of imprisonment. "pleasing someones master" does not entail sex; its rather in reference to the service offered by regular workers, not wives. There were a lot of rights for those kinds of slaves which were not comparable to the anachronisms you would impose.

    In the new testament it doesn't necessarily deal with Jewish culture, but it's notable that Paul suggests that women remain unmarried 1Co 7:8 "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I." Which implies that marriages were not forced under Christianity.

  • Bump. Because June 6th is coming up.

    Bump. Because June 6th is coming up.

  • On what basis?

    On what basis can you make that assumption(particularly in the face of the reasons I've shown to the contrary of it)? How does a connection between salvation and communication justify your assumption that God would act as you say? It seems that you just base one assumption on another, moving the baselessness up one level. You assume God would communicate a certain way because that would be a more efficient means of saving people, but that assumes that God wants to save those people who say they need better communication, and it assumes that they would in fact react positively to better communication. It assumes that the bible is wrong when it says that those who reject Moses and the prophets wouldn't believe even if they saw someone rise from the dead ,and it assumes the Bible is wrong when it says God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and it probably assumes that mercy is obligatory, and that justice is unjust.

  • That's an interesting story, but why should anybody believe you?

    That's an interesting story, but why should anybody believe you?

  • baby with the bathwater.

    There are reasons why philosophers and theologians attribute certain characteristics to God. There is no reason to make your assumptions about the scope of people God would save or the mode he would choose to communicate with people.

  • A key phrase is "outside of the bounds of marriage"

    A key phrase is "outside of the bounds of marriage". In English, or at least in English a couple hundred years ago, adultery is what some married people do, fornication is what some unmarried people do: "Websters 1828: FORNICA'TION, n. [L. fornicatio.]
    1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female;"

    But you are right fornication is also used more generally, at least in Greek and Hebrew. But when people speak English, they sometimes use the English distinction involving the unmarried, and because adultery would be the more proper term when involving married people.

  • God is logical. But we shouldn't be presumptuous.

    Re:"Should I not make my assumption that God is logical?"

    You presuppose other things about God before you apply logic to the situation. Your unjustified presuppositions are the problem. I agree God is logical, but he can do a lot more than what you presuppose. You assume that he has the goals you think he ought to have. I don't think it's his sovereign goal to save everyone, but you seem to assume it ought to be his goal, or would be his goal. He can do whatever he desires, but his desires reflect his nature, which includes, holiness, justice, goodness, etc. He can be clear to some, demonstrating mercy, and unclear to others, demonstrating a smaller amount of mercy and more justice. Mercy and justice are compatible through the atonement and are both good things. God can demonstrate both attributes by acting differently towards different people. If he chooses to serve justice to someone, and mercy to someone else, there is no logical inconsistency or moral negligence.

    Romans 9:15 "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Romans 9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
    Proverbs 16:4 "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

    Re:"You cannot really believe that God's objective isn't to be clear with us."

    With some he has mercy and teaches things with more clarity, with others he gives them over to their own delusions and lets them believe the lies they love. It's not a matter of confusing people as much as it's him stepping back and letting people confuse themselves. Psalms 9:15 "The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken"

    "By your logic, we should believe as little sheeple, not expecting any consistency in return. Just as robot mindless children would do, we should not ask questions, don't make assumptions, ..."

    That is not my view. We should expect consistency, we can ask questions, but we should not make assumptions. Presumptuousness is not a virtue. I think you are misusing that text, Barnes commentary says: "As a little child - With the temper and spirit of a child - teachable, mild, humble, and free from prejudice and obstinacy." There is no mention of mindlessness. Children have lots of questions.

  • Denise is right

    Denise is right, God didn't approve of a lot of stuff Solomon did, including having multiple wives. God commanded that he not have multiple wives:

    Deu 17:17a "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away..."

    But Solomon disobeyed, and it led to his downfall:

    1Ki_11:4a "For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God... "

    Maybe polygamy wasn't considered fornication, just as adultery isn't considered fornication, but polygamy was still considered sinful disobedience to God. The fact that the bible records the historical event that Solomon was sinful in practicing polygamy does not mean God endorsed his sinful behavior.

  • I have thought about this.

    I got an A in my logic course at university.

    The problem is that your assumptions about how God would operate are based on your other presuppositions about how you think he operates. You presuppose that he would want to make things as plain as possible so that everyone would accept him. And if your assumptions were correct, maybe he would do as you say, and maybe he would just reveal himself to everybody 24/7 as plain as day. But Jesus told a different story; Jesus spoke in parables, and at times told people not to mention his miracles. He came into the world in obscurity, and spoke in obscurity.

    Luke 8:10 "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

    If God wanted to save everyone I think he could, but I don't think he has any obligation to have mercy on anyone, since mercy by definition is not obligatory. By not showing mercy to some, He merely leaves those with justice, which is still just and good. Since they don't love the truth, he gives them over to the lies they love:

    2Th 2:10-12 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

    And this giving them over to the lies they love is not out of cruelty, but rather out of a measure of mercy because those who would reject God with full knowledge of him will have a less severe punishment when they reject him with less knowledge of him:

    2Peter 2:20-21 "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

    Ultimately, it's like this because they would still reject God even if he was totally out in the open showing himself:

    Luke 16:29-31 "Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

    And since some People will still reject God no matter what evidence he gives, he chooses to lessen their punishment by making them less accountable, by giving them less clear evidence:

    1Co 1:21 "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

    So by using less convincing but still sufficient methods, God can save those who will accept him with less impact on those who will always want to reject him.

    This is probably because God doesn't enjoy punishing people even when they deserve it:

    Ezekiel 33:11 "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

  • How do you know what God would have done?

    Re:" He would have done so ..."

    How do you know what God would have done? Making a God to suit yourself is called idolatry.

  • soo bitter..

    Re:"1. He allowed billions of people to be sent to hell because what was coming is better? How is it better for the billions of people in Hell? What could be better than the paradise and deathless, joyful existence we might have known in the Garden of Eden? Wasn't that heaven on earth?"

    You've got it wrong, probably on purpose. People go to hell because of their sin, how is that hard for you to understand? Nobody goes there without deserving it. He allows people to go there own godless way for various reasons, but they are the ones going their own godless way. God has no obligation to remove peoples freedom of choice when they choose hell. God's purpose is not the happiness of every being that chooses corruption, but rather his purpose is the glorification of what is good. The punishment of the wicked is part of that. You seem to have a very man centered view of theology, as if everything must revolve around the comfort of sinful people who aren't the center of the universe.

    Re:"Foreknowledge of their sin doesn't invalidate their culpability unless you have the power to make minor changes to their programing to avoid the sin altogether, or are the one who instilled the defect of sin to begin with."

    So if a cop in a sting operation can but wont stop the sale of stolen goods from happening by showing his badge, that makes the criminal not guilty for their crime?

    Re:"Also, what's the point of testing them and then punishing them when the answer is predetermined? If you know they will fail, don't bother testing, just fix them."

    There is nothing in them that makes them deserve intervention. Mercy is something that's given without obligation. You seem to assume that God has an obligation to show mercy, but it's a misuse of the term.

    Re:"If the police know a terrorist is going to detonate a bomb and they have the power to make the terrorist "not" detonate a bomb, they should do so, not wait for him to detonate it, and "then" punish him. Punishing him doesn't do anything for the victims he killed does it? An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Especially if they could snap their fingers and make the terrorist decide he prefers volunteering in a soup kitchen to blowing up people."

    That conflates different issues; we're talking about culpability. Even if the police allowed innocents to be harmed, that doesn't mean that the terrorist is no longer guilty of their crime.

    Re:"2. So God believes in protecting the free will of criminals, but not of innocent victims? "

    You assume that there is such a thing as innocent victims. But aside from that, the way free will works is that some people can abuse it. That is just the necessary result of freedom. You should go join Mccain and the patriot act people who want to remove freedom for fear of crime. It's sad that people abuse freedom and harm others, but the abuse of freedom is the inevitable risk of true freedom. God promises to wipe away every tear, so the end result should justify the momentary affliction. There is biblical imagery of a Woman in labor, going through pain of labor to produce something of such value that the pain seems less significant.

    Re:"For example: A murdering rapist wants to rape and murder a woman. God could stop it, warning the man does no good because he has predetermined that the rape and murder ARE going to take place. The only thing that can stop it is divine intervention. But god decides that the rapist/murderer's free will is precious and does not interfere. what about the woman who is about to be brutally raped and murdered? Why doesn't Yahweh care that HER free will is being revoked? What about her kids? I guess their horror and suffering serves God's mysterious plan, because clearly their free will doesn't matter to him."

    This is a different kind of scenario for a different subject which strays from my point. It's still a valid concern though, and basically points out the problem of evil. But the problem of evil has been addressed and answered throughout history. One answer is that there are no good people, and since everyone has rebelled against God in some way, they basically deserve hell or separation from God, and anything less than hell in this temporary life is not as bad as what is deserved, So the complaint is comparable to someone on death-row complaining about how the prison food is cooked. The self righteous godless will not like that answer, but another answer is seen in Rom_8:18: "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." The idea is that temporary suffering is not comparable to the eternal results, similar to how enduring the pain of a dentist visit is justified in what it accomplishes.

    Re:"Further, how can free will even exist when the future is foreseen and predetermined?

    I already mentioned compatibilism. Apparently you don't care that your question has already been answered by non-christian philosophers. The answer is that freedom is seen in the ability to do as you please rather than a hypothetical ability to do otherwise. It's debated among philosophers, but it's not an uncommon view.

    Re:"You have no choice, and God already knows who will go to heaven and hell. That means he has made those bound for hell as they are, knows they will "not" be saved and is okay torturing them in hell forever when they inevitably go there as he knew they would. The best part is, he could have made them more like those who are going to heaven without interfering with their free will (just like he did to all those heaven bound people) and not have to feel bad for torturing them... unless that's what he wants."

    You do have a choice, and you choose godlessness like everyone else. I agree that God could save everyone if he wanted to, but I don't see any obligation for him to do so. He either gives justice, or mercy, and justice is not an unjustified or bad choice, even though it's unpleasant for those receiving justice in the form of punishment. You seem to want it both ways; When God saves people, you complain that they should take their punishment, but when they take their punishment you say that God should save them rather than letting them suffer. Double standard. It's important to note that God exists prior to time, so when he looks at people from outside of time, he sees their heart for their entire life at once and not as they move through time. So taking your suggestion and preventing a sinful action doesn't deal with the corrupt inclinations of their heart. Letting it take it's course reveals what is inside, not only to God who already knows it, but to other created beings who have reasons for knowing such information, such as the participant of the choice or angels who rejoice when people turn from sin.

    Re:"You think Lions were designed to eat lettuce? Huh."

    Panda bears eat 99% bamboo, and they have sharp teeth. I don't know what God's intention for Lions was.

    Re:"3. So god made Adam and Eve imperfectly, despite him being a perfect builder, but considered their freedom to commit sin a good thing? But then he punishes them (and everyone else) for doing what he wanted and considered a good thing. So God's view is that you must have the freedom to sin, but if you do, you'll be banished to hell and suffer forever."

    Perfect example of spin. You should join the mainstream media. He considers 'freedom to be virtuous' to be a good thing, and eventually the saved will exercise that freedom perfectly. the freedom to sin is the flip-side of the same coin, but it's a necessary evil of freedom. You spin it to say that God likes the necessary evil portion of freedom. But really he has repeatedly discouraged bad choices.

    Re:" Now granted, he may have preferred that they rise above their sinful ways and remained 100% obedient, only... he knew in advance that they wouldn't. So he mustn't have wanted that very badly or he would have fixed them so they'd pass. Once again begging the question: Why introduce a test which you 100% absolutely unquestionably understand they WILL fail, and the consequences for failure are horrific suffering and torture until the end of time? I guess because the end result is really great for the few people who don't go to hell right? Poor bastards who God wanted in Hell."

    Is it really horrific for people to get what they deserve? They only go to hell because God left them to their own devices. Why feel sorry for people who did what they wanted and chose hell? Weren't you saying earlier that people should be responsible for their actions?

    Re:"You say I can't fault Yahweh for letting people make informed decisions to be disobedient, but you are wrong. God designed them to make disobedient choices that would result in hell. This is provable by the simple fact that God knows they will disobey him in advance, but does nothing to save them from their fate. You can claim he tries to warn them, but when he already knows the warnings will not work because of his psychic powers, the end result is the same. God is only making a pretext of helping, when in reality he stops short of doing ANYTHING that will actually change the future and save the hell-bound. Its not a question, there is no chance or choice that they will choose to obey; there is no informed decision. The result is predetermined before they are even born. It IS what Yahweh wanted, or he would change it."

    They are not acting against their will when they make their decisions. They freely choose their sin, and enjoy their sin. They are not objecting to what they are doing. Their will is not violated by God's knowledge as they are pleased to do what they do. The fact that he knows the warnings will not work on some, does not necessarily mean the warnings are not valid, as he may have used the same warnings effectively elsewhere, showing their efficacy as valid warnings, and this sort of thing is detailed in the bible when it mentions certain groups adding to the judgement of others because they experienced the same things with different results. The failure to heed the warning is then on the person.

    Re:"The ONLY possible defense against this is that God cannot see the future. But the bible says otherwise, and you'd be placing a limit on God's power. So... make your choice."

    There is compatibilism as one response, and William Lane Craig has a different response as well.

    Re:"4. He gave us the freedom to do exactly as we are commanded or burn in hell. That isn't free choice. Its coercion. That's like saying you have the freedom to pay your taxes. Wrong, you WILL pay your taxes or you will be locked in a cage or shot. But what God does is far worse because he has foreknowledge. You are literally already sentenced to Hell with 0% chance of changing your fate the second you are born. That would be like the government outlawing you from having money, then demanding on pain of torture/execution that you pay your taxes. The very fact that the future is foreseen is undeniable unquestionable proof of this."

    There are different levels of good choices that people are free to choose from, which is why there is mention of different levels of reward. Paul says it is good to get married, but better to stay unmarried. That is a free choice. The fact that fornication is forbidden doesn't mean you have no choice about marriage. So the fact that one choice among many is punished doesn't mean there is no freedom. Also, do you consider it coercion when a dentist shows his patients a picture of rotten teeth and says that they can choose to brush their teeth or end up with rotten teeth like the ones in the picture? That's effectively what God is doing. I wouldn't consider warning people of the consequences of their actions to be coercion, particularly when the consequences are the logical result of the behavior; If people reject the only God, the author and sustainer of life from whom all good things come, then what are they left with in eternity if not their own empty torment and regret? If God wanted to coerce people, he could go about it in a more effective manner by removing their freedom and making them robots.

    Re:" If I have a child and let her choose to pick up a pink toy or a blue one, and the pink one (which my child loves pink) is actually a landmine, that is not good, just or anything else. It is rampant sadistic evil. I don't have to place a bomb there at all, I especially don't have to rig that bomb to an inevitable choice I know she will make. Ridiculous."

    I don't see how this is representative of God. God knows what is sufficient information for someone to make an informed decision, and he knows when their heart is in rebellion. You seem to think that everyone who chooses sin is as innocent as a child choosing a toy, that is not the case.

    Re:"5. You say the bible is an accurate historical text, especially the parts about Jesus? Does it not bother you at all that the gospels were assembled and Jesus' divinity voted on by a group of corrupt Roman Oligarchs during the height of corruption of Imperial Rome? Does the fact that the bible says Jesus was a god only because of a narrow vote at the council of Nicaea bother you one ounce? How can you even claim the bible is historically accurate? It says Hebrew slaves built the pyramids of Egypt for example when we know for a fact that the workers were paid Egyptians. This entire topic will require far more that ill get into later."

    HAha. where do you get this nonsense? Nicea merely recognized what was already taught. Narrow vote? haha. 2 or 3 from a specific region disagreeing with over 300 from all over is a narrow vote? Less than 20 were on the fence and then sided against Arius at the meeting, the rest were all opposed to Arianism from the start. Roman oligarchs? You mean Christian church leaders from churches from different continents and regions were roman oligarchs? please.. Where did you get the idea that pyramids are mentioned in the Bible? You think the Bible was assembled at Nicea? There was no discussion of canon there. The canon was recognized hundreds of years before and book lists existed in writings of the early church fathers talking about the memoirs of the apostles and such, then there's things like the muratorian fragment from 170. And Peter even acknowledged the canonicity of Paul's writings in 2nd Peter 3:16.

    Re:"6. I give far more props to a guy who dies for a cause without any idea that he's going to be resurrected."

    What if he would have to become a roach, get squished, and then be resurrected as a roach and stay that way for eternity? It's not a perfect analogy, but my point is that there is more to it than mere death and resurrection.

    Re:"7. So in order to have a relationship with God, an innocent person must first be brutally tortured and murdered? Why would Yahweh demand this kind of horror to occur before we can have a relationship with him? Isn't that somewhat messed up?"

    It seems obvious that you aren't serious about asking questions, but rather are looking for excuses to trash talk. You were asking about how the atonement can pay for sins, and I was pointing out that the incarnation is part of the atonement which deals with sins. The incarnation is involved in making relationship possible because finite humans can't relate to an infinite God unless he meets them at their level. But with regard to the brutal death, it demonstrates the seriousness of sin. You seem to think sin is no big deal if someone frees a group of people from an oppressive government, but that is a very slack view of sin and holiness.

    Re:"I accept gifts from my family and friends all the time. I will not allow any of them to be horribly tortured, mutilated and crucified in my place for me however. Especially not for some stupid reason like allowing me to have a relationship with the cosmic king. It would destroy me and wrack me with crippling guilt for the rest of my life. It would make me hate beyond measure the cosmic king who allowed this to one of my loved ones just so that I could join his fan-club."

    Didn't you just get done saying how unimpressive the death of Jesus was since he knew he would be resurrected? Now all of the sudden it's unbearable and crippling. You seem to like double standards. It's not surprising that the temporal life means so much to you, because you don't seem to realize what's beyond it. Do you prevent your family from going to dentists?

    Re:"God IS unholy. He's a sadistic, mass-murdering psychopathic xenophobe who engages in deception, theft, and genocide. He is a foul tempered gambler with no regard for human life who enjoys torture. He takes no personal respsonability for his screw ups, rather blames his creations. If that's holy, I can't think of any human who measures up. MAYBE Hitler... but even he probably falls short of that lofty perch."

    And you don't think you can be mistaken about God? Even when he says he finds no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked? How can the creator of everything be considered a thief? How can an all knowing being be considered a gambler? How is capital punishment considered murder? You call me a horrible person for mentioning the book that calls Gandhi a racist for how he treated and spoke of black people, but you call God all of these names. You are just full of hate and bitterness for reasons that don't even make sense.

    Re:"8. That link is rubbish. "

    Typical. Ignore answers, don't interact with them, just pretend they don't exist.

    Re:"9. Oh you are so wrong. Do me a favor and spend some time reading Exodus 34 ..."

    Exodus 34 doesn't say what was written on the stones. What was written on the stones was written by God himself, but the stuff in Exodus 34 is what God told Moses to write down, which the covenant was "after the tenor of" according to Exodus 34:27 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." Those words were after the tenor of the covenant, but they weren't necessarily the covenant itself. It seems pretty obvious that God is just clarifying some of the commandments to Moses in Exodus 34. The fact that he tells Moses to write it shows that it is a separate occurrence from the commandments that God wrote himself, which are detailed in Deuteronomy 5-6 when it's referred to as the covenant(the stones were said to have the 'covenant' written on them). Tradition has Moses writing most of the Torah including most of Deuteronomy. Redaction criticism which gives later dates for books of the Torah is flawed in that it assumes that a single person is not able to write with more than one style. Beyond that, Jesus cites Deuteronomy 6 when he describes the commandments in Mark 12:29.

    "If you were a rational person, this revelation that something from the bible you were sure you knew to be the TRUTH is just a fabrication brought about because Christians don't know shit about their own bible would violently throw into suspect everything you thought you knew or were told was TRUTH. But you're not, so it won't."

    How typical that anyone who disagrees with you must be irrational. I could pull the same stuff and say you are irrational for disagreeing with my arguments and the argument of compatibilism by philosophers, but I would rather point out the actual flaws in your thinking, like double standards and factual errors.

    Re:"As for Gandhi, I don't care if he was bisexual or a womanizer. "

    And you don't mind if he was racist either?

    Re:"Jesus probably didn't even exist"

    ha ha

  • Heh heh...

    Re:"I don't know enough about your religion to critic it? First, I used to be one of you."

    Heh heh... How can you say you used to be one of me when you admit you don't even know enough about me to critique my beliefs? Typical. I don't know how many times I've seen people who flirted with a religion they later reject pretend they were an expert in it.
    I'm not an expert by the way, but I can see that you aren't either.

    Re:"Second, I've actually read your bible."

    In context? Why talk about apples if you've read it? Why bring up antinomianism as if any Christians actually believe that?

    Re:"Third, the Christian religion is not complex or difficult to understand other than trying to understand how anyone can fall for it."

    That just shows you have a shallow understanding of it. There is a lot that is not addressed in the Bible that leaves people wondering about a host of topics.

    Re:"However, since you are confident that you are able to address my "misconceptions" all day long, humor me and answer a couple of these."

    I doubt any explanation will suffice because I don't think these are the real reasons why people reject Christianity, But I'll respond anyways.

    Re:"Do your best not to pretend they've all been answered before so you don't have too."

    They have been answered, stop pretending they haven't. I'll go over some of it again for you anyways, but if you looked for it you'd find much more detailed answers to the same kinds of questions.

    Re:"Try not to pick a stupid technicality in order to dodge them.These are conceptual problems with the overarching logic of the bible"

    I'm not yet convinced you know how logic works. Have you taken any logic courses? Sometimes a small point is all it takes to invalidate an entire argument.

    Re:"that keeps ignorant people like me from being saved by Yahweh, so if you can answer them sufficiently its possible you could save mine, and other people's souls."

    I disagree with that. Answering your questions will not change your heart. Faith in God is not mere intellectual assent, even though it's part of it.

    Re:"1. Why was the forbidden fruit placed in the Garden of Eden when Yahweh had foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would eat it? "

    He allowed it because he knew the end result(which hasn't happened yet) would be better than the beginning.

    Re:"Further, why did he punish them and every other human who would ever live after when they did EXACTLY what he knew they would? Does it make sense to you? Or does Yahweh just work in mysterious ways?"

    Two things. 1, Why would prior knowledge of someones sin invalidate their culpability? If the police know a terrorist is going to detonate a bomb, does that mean they shouldn't prosecute him?
    2, God is able to give people over to their own desires and hold them accountable for their decisions. And beyond that, if God knows how they would sin, he can let them decide to sin in order to accomplish a greater good. For example when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, it resulted in Joseph becoming a ruler in Egypt and resulted in averting the effects of a famine on his family, and yet God intended to let them sin to accomplish this. It says: Gen 50:20 "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." The fact that God knows or even intends that someones sin will be used for a greater good doesn't remove the fact that the sinners are acting according to their own will and doing as they please in their rejection of God's law. They choose the sin, they like the sin, they are responsible for the sin, regardless of what God knows.

    Re:"Why did he bother asking them not to when he KNEW a billion years in advance they would disobey him."

    There are probably many reasons but the Bible doesn't exactly answer that. Maybe he warned them because he's good, and it's good to warn people of danger. It also demonstrated his trustworthiness which could be part of his plan in building a relationship, and he made their decision informed so that they could exercise free choice which is good in itself. The fact that they would disobey him was anticipated and he already had a plan to remedy the situation in a way which would create the best end result (which hasn't happened yet). This may have also been done for the sake of heavenly beings, in that it set up the ground work for bringing in a gospel which would demonstrate attributes of God to the heavenly realm by how he dealt with humans. It may also be that if they hadn't been free to make that kind of informed decision, that they wouldn't be able to progress and grow in virtue beyond what they would have otherwise.

    Re:"2. Why were animals and humans given digestive systems, teeth and claws etc. When we were all made deathless and death did not exist? Wouldn't population have been a pretty serious problem in a world where nothing could die, but reproduction was a commandment?"

    There are vegetarian animals with sharp teeth. Eating was part of the pre-fall garden of Eden. Reproduction wasn't suggested until after the fall, maybe it wouldn't have been promoted without a fall. It wasn't necessarily commanded after the fall either, it could have been a benediction, a blessing. But the universe is a big place, and expanding. If there was no death, I wonder how much of the universe would be inhabited by now.

    Re:"3. If Adam and Eve were perfect, why did they make a mistake and eat the forbidden fruit? Isn't disobedience to Yahweh a flaw? How can a perfect being make a mistake?"

    The Bible doesn't say they were perfect, it says they were good... but anyways, freedom is a good thing. If they didn't have the freedom to make choices, there would be no virtue in their actions, no way to become more virtuous or demonstrate virtue. Christian theology has humans changing into a different kind of being after the resurrection, and that may have been positively affected by the redemption from the fall. The redemption through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus is thought by some to bring people closer to God than they would have been in Eden without a fall. Disobedience is a character flaw, but you can't fault God for letting people make informed decisions.

    Re:"4. Why are humans considered evil and sinful when Yahweh made us exactly as we are? Why are we responsible for his design flaws? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to simply fix us so we could all be happy and go to heaven rather than punish us with Hell?"

    He gave us the freedom to do as we please. That is not evil. If we use our freedom for evil, we are culpable because that freedom is ours. There is a philosophical concept called compatibilism which addresses this in relation to the view that God's foreknowledge determines actions, but not everyone believes that God's foreknowledge determines actions. I think God had the end result in mind rather than our temporary life here. Again, having the ability to make decisions makes things like virtue possible. It would be better for God to populate heaven with virtuous decision makers rather than robots. But there is purpose for hell as well. There is more in play than God and Humans. There are angels, and other heavenly beings. Somehow our lives demonstrate things in the heavenly realm, and God demonstrates different attributes of his character to heavenly beings by damning some who deserve it, and by having mercy on others(Romans 9:21-23 mentions the demonstration but doesn't get into the heavenly beings there). A greater good argument may be in play which may involve a greater end result for the saved, but may also involve a more significant end result for heavenly beings. I doubt that God's ultimate plan is human-centric. Hell wasn't made for Humans, it was made for rebellious angels.

    Re:"5. You claim the bible is written by Yahweh and his profits who transcribed his word perfectly. How do you know? Did Yahweh tell you this directly, or did you simply read it in the Bible. Isn't that a conflict of interests? Isn't that like asking Ford what the best kind of truck is?"

    I never claimed what you say. I believe the Bible authors were inspired by God, and I believe that God preserved the message through transmission of his Gospel. But I don't think transcription has to be perfect for the message to be intact and effective. I think that the textual critical arguments for the tenacity of Scripture are reasonable enough. The manuscript evidence and textual families are strongly in favor of the texts tenacity, much more than any other work of antiquity. I have no doubt that we have the teachings of Jesus and his apostles in the bible. The variations in manuscripts and translations are pretty insignificant when it comes to the gospel being communicated. Looking into textual criticism of the Bible is how I come to those conclusions.

    re:"6. If Jesus is Yahweh, and he "knew" he was going to rise from death, was it really a sacrifice? It'd be pretty easy to take a bullet for someone if you knew you were going to be resurrected in 3 days."

    I don't think enduring the pain of crucifixion seems "easy", it doesn't really seem comparable to taking a bullet. But you have to consider that Jesus did more than just endure a painful death. The incarnation is a form of sacrifice as well and isn't really separated from his death on the cross. He was God, and became a human(Philippians 2:6-8), taking on the form of a servant, being made lower than the angels; it;s a huge step down. Then he died as a human to finish it, and was resurrected as a resurrected human. So instead of being 100% God, he is now 100% God and 100% resurrected human. There is a cost with the incarnation beyond just death, because the Word(of John 1:1-14) became Jesus, and will remain Jesus forever. There are different views of the atonement which delve into the concept of incarnation to explain how the Word of John 1:1 becoming Jesus in John 1:14 is how Jesus is able to incorporate Christians into his body (who would otherwise be unable to relate to God), providing a unity between Christ and the church. here's a paper on the subject: http://home.messiah.edu/%7Ercollins/Philosophical%20Theology...

    Re:"7. How does Jesus getting tortured and murdered, absolve murders, child molesters, and Democrats of their guilt?"

    It doesn't free people from prosecution on earth. The paper on the atonement linked above might shed light on your question, because salvation is not merely about forgiveness, it has to do with entering into a relationship with God, and the incarnation, death and resurrection is part of that.

    Re:"Shouldn't people have to take personal responsibility for their own actions rather than using innocent whipping boys to suffer in their stead?"

    That is not representative of Jesus. Christians didn't really know what Jesus was doing on the cross until after the resurrection, and now that it's already finished, it's not like he's getting tortured again every time someone becomes a Christian. And he went through it willingly, knowing what it would cost and what it would accomplish.

    Re:"What if I don't want to someone else to suffer because of what I have done? What if I believe in paying my own way and don't want to be saddled with guilt or owe favors?"

    There are times when people should bear their own burdens and not accept gifts, but where love, family, and relationships are involved, sometimes accepting a gift can be a form of love, and a way to receive love. Sometimes in forms of unity like marriage or corporations, responsibility is shared. And Salvation entails a kind of unity with Jesus depicted as a marriage as well as depicted as becoming part of his body. The idea that favors are owed in response to a gift is a misunderstanding of what a gift is. It's common for people to think that they should give gifts because of what it gets them in return, but that's not a gift, that's an investment. In order to accept Christianity, I think you need to know what a gift really is, that it's free, and that trying to pay something for it in return cheapens it(particularly if it's an expensive gift) to the point that you're not really accepting it as a gift. The irony is that guilt is what is dealt with at the cross, it seems that you don't know how to accept a gift.

    Re:" I didn't ask for anyone to die for me, and frankly it would piss me off to no end if they did without my permission. "

    Those who believe in limited atonement would say that he didn't die for you if you reject him, he only died for those he came to save.

    Re:"Further if we are all guilty because none of us are "holy" why doesn't Yahweh lower the @#$%ing bar a little so that we can actually pass? Also isn't it a bit arrogant for a guy who is guilty of murder, jealousy, and deceit to tell us we aren't holy enough for him? What a prick."

    So since we aren't holy, God should become unholy too? You don't see a problem with that? Even if there weren't other heavenly beings to be considered, which might be affected negatively by God compromising his holiness, if there were only humans and God, who wants to worship an unholy God?

    Re:"8. How is it that a boat only about a quarter of the size of the Titanic managed to hold millions upon millions of pairs of animals, and billions of tons of food and fresh water? The Titanic's capacity was a little under 2500 people and could hold enough food to keep them alive for 2 weeks. How did these animals survive for 6 months, then reproduce without creating retarded offspring because of a complete lack of genetic diversity in their parents? Further, how come all the sea life in the world didn't immediately die when all the world's salt water mixed with all the world's fresh water?"

    The fitting has been addressed in numerous places, here's one:
    I don't know the exact answers to the other parts, But if God was involved, it wouldn't be a problem in that if he can turn water into wine, part oceans, and raise the dead, he can surely help some animals survive a flood and thrive afterwards. It would not be surprising that more genetically pure animals of that time would have less inbreeding problems considering that there was no prohibition against incest until the time of Moses, and life spans were much longer until a little after the flood, hinting at some genetic superiority at that time. There may have been an uneven distribution of salt enough to allow certain fish to survive, It would not be difficult for God to arrange such things if what the Bible says about his miraculous power is true. But Fish at that time may have been slightly different in endurance, and the different kinds of fish today might be more fragile than their ancestors which may have had less genetic degradation and less of the harmful mutations that cause it. It seems you want to look at the bible through the lenses of an atheist where God can not be involved in history, but that is rigging the question. You are asking how God's involvement in history can be true, but then you assume that he can't be involved in history. Can you see the problem there?

    Re:"9. If you know so much about your religion, how come you and 99.9999999% of other Christians have no idea that there is no such thing as the 10 commandments in the bible, and the only thing that comes close has almost nothing to do with the list you mistakenly believe are the top 10? Does it surprise you to learn that the 10 things written on the stone tablets in the Arc of the Covenant have nothing to do with what is inscribed in stone outside an Alabama Courthouse?"

    The ten commandments are listed in Exodus 20, and Deuteronomy 5:6-22. It's also explicitly mentioned as the ten commandments here: Exodus 34:28 "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

    Re:"10. Why does Yahweh refuses to grant his clerics the power to heal amputees? I've seen Televangelists cast cure spells to purge all sorts of ailments on TV, yet I have never once seen Yahweh grant one of his clerics the Regeneration spell so that they could heal back a severed limb. Does Yahweh have something against amputees, or is it that none of his clerics are high enough level to cast a 5th level divine cleric spell? That wouldn't be logical because healing spells can't cure paralysis, only a Regeneration spell can do that, and I have SEEN Televangelists cure paralysis. When will we get to see a limb miraculously grow back?"

    I don't think TBN represents Christianity, and I don't believe they are healing anything, except for maybe psychosomatic illness which isn't really an example of miraculous healing. But the answer is simple: Mat 12:39 "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:" I don't believe that signs of healing are for today because Jesus said there would be no sign but the sign of Jonas. Miracles were performed by the apostles in establishing their authority and the church, but the Bible teaches sick Christians to take medication. 1Ti 5:23 "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." Anointing with oil was also considered secular medicine of that time, so mentions of that might be thought of as mentions of secular medicine.

    Re:"In closing; you will answer none of these, "

    Does that make you a false prophet, or just presumptuous?

    Re:"Also, you are a horrible person for disparaging Gandhi"

    What if the book is true? Is it wrong to tell the truth when it's uncomfortable? Is it wrong to mention books that present information about your hero's in a less than positive light? Is it worse than calling God names and blaspheming him?

    Re:"Also, concerning Mother Theresa, quit pretending and go google it. Read her own words."

    I won't use google. But I've looked at some articles and read some of her words with a different search engine, but it's not clear to me what she really believed. she mentioned having a lot of godless emotions, but then would turn around and ask Jesus for forgiveness for it. She was torn. If you consider that atheism, I don't care, I still don't know what she thought in her heart on her deathbed. Your standard of righteousness is soo low if you think those three people are the be all and end all of righteousness. Even Ron Paul endorsed one of TMOT's opponents, which seems like missing the mark. Jesus never sinned, but you seem to disparage him and his religion.