That's not quite how I put it.  I don't recall saying anything about imposed rules either. 

When I was 4 I'm sure I wondered why my parents punished me when I did what I thought was a good thing.

Didn't say that either.  It may be a person's response to adversity, period.  We can use adversity as a means to grow, or we can become bitter.  That is our choice.  Take relationships for instance:  Often relationships are strengthened in times of adversity and as a result of facing many difficulties in life together.  The point is that love is often best expressed when it involves suffering.  That is why I said love is most "real" through suffering.   

No.... I said that some people will become bitter.  I did not say that is one of the reasons god allows people to suffer. 

He can know what will happen, yes, but having the ability to know does not mean that He orchestrates things for us.  Being omniscient doesn't interfere with free will.  That's a common fallacy.

He doesn't necessarily craft the situation, nor does any interaction with us necessarily have to be connected to his knowledge of the future. 

Like I said, perhaps it was God's final attempt (final, allowed "opportunity) at getting the person's attention?  Perhaps there were numerous other circumstances in life when that person could have come to faith/humility/repentance/etc.. less painfully.

First of all, I am not claiming to know with absolute certainty exactly why God permits every instance of evil in this world.  Suffering is a mystery as are many other things in the universe.  I am, however, trying to provide you with possibilities that don't conflict with God's nature.  I can see, from the simple parent-child analogy, the plausibility that God permits evil in this life (what we perceive as painful experiences/suffering) in order to show us our need of Him, our fallibility, our pride, etc.. etc..  You are reading plot holes and contradictions into my examples.  I'd simple like to show that allowing human suffering may not be as inconsistent with a loving God as many seem to think, no matter how unnatural to our minds it may be.  God's ways are not our ways.  They are high above ours. 

...I consider myself Christian...Tell me:  Why would I want to join you in your supposed "disbelief"?

... Is this what will become of me?  

 

Tell me:  What motivates you?  How will disbelieving "improve" "life" (you seem already dead)?  Do you live for this world (your earthly life)?  Do you live for yourself?  For pleasure?  To escape suffering?  Have you compassion (for others - especially for strangers)?  Do you work for the common good?  What reason have you to?  Is love real or is it a chemical reaction;... what motivation do you have to me "moral" at all?  In that case, how do you even determine morality/ethics?...

while others  like butterbattle, bobspence, or Eloise ( she's a theist ) are virtually unflappable. 

No, that's not what I meant.  I did not mean to say that I know God exists b/c everything is not as it seems.  I'm simply saying that I cannot logically dismiss the possibility of His existence based on my imperfect evaluation of the universe.

This is an argument for agnosticism, ...

It wasn't death was it? It was only a 3 days of nothing. He is alive so therefore he never died. Death means death.

There is the real answer to why you believe. Your own insecurity and narcissism.

You love yourself to much to ever admit that you may not go on forever. Because you are insecure about your mortality is hardly a reason for me to believe such an outlandish story.

Also you would not go to hell for all eternity if it even existed. If you were being tortured, you would do anything to get out of it. You don't live by any standard of morality other that do what's convienient for yourself. I've never met a person that really lives by any moral standard than this.

 There is only physical death.  No one ceases to exists when they die.  I know it won't help you to tell you this, but I know this for a fact b/c many people in my family have had contact with other "dead" family - even foretelling future (usually family-related) events.  And I'm not telling you that to convince you as you obviously don't believe what can't be proven.  And I can't tell you why some people have supernatural experiences while others do not.

A reoccuring theme amongst Atheists is that God cannot be proven.  There was a time when we couldn't prove the earth was round too.  Atheists will accept that which can be proven and will not accept unproven claims.   That's actually a very un-scientific way of giong about things.  Even a scientist has to be open minded and ready to accept all possibilities until they can be disproven.  But what many Atheists do is the opposite of scientific.  They only accept that which others have proven, usually as a result of an open-mind!  Iow, let the open-minded scientists do the legwork so we know what to believe, but have a closed-minded approach to life.  THAT IS NOT FREETHINKING!!!

Let's take a more scientific approach to the God question:

I don't know the exact statistics, but a hefty portion of the human population has either had a supernatural experience, or believes in the supernatural, particularly the belief that God exists.  Even in our very scientific age the majority of the human race believes in a God.  Why?  Are we, perhaps, created with an innate desire for Him?  A longing to find Him, and know Him?  You can take individuals, one by one, and MOST of the time you will find the person has faith.  Even despite the fact that science has made great progress in attempting to explain the universe, people continue to have faith.  Despite the fact that many of our conventional (and usually faith-derived) ideas about the universe have been disproven (at least, disproven to be literal).

 

 Does any of that prove God exists?  NO!  But no true scientist, freethinker, or whatever else you look up to for your answers would dismiss the likelihood that something is possible or true when it is repeatedly observed! 

Even a scientist has to be open minded and ready to accept all possibilities until they can be disproven.  But what many Atheists do is the opposite of scientific.  They only accept that which others have proven, usually as a result of an open-mind!  Iow, let the open-minded scientists do the legwork so we know what to believe, but have a closed-minded approach to life.  THAT IS NOT FREETHINKING!!!

I don't know the exact statistics, but a hefty portion of the human population has either had a supernatural experience, or believes in the supernatural, particularly the belief that God exists.

Even in our very scientific age the majority of the human race believes in a God.  Why?  Are we, perhaps, created with an innate desire for Him?  A longing to find Him, and know Him?

Even if we can't prove the experiences come from God, most of these people do attribute it to God and many sacred writings affirm the veracity of their claims.

But no true scientist, freethinker, or whatever else you look up to for your answers would dismiss the likelihood that something is possible or true when it is repeatedly observed!

Ghost Hunters.

stgemma wrote:

...I consider myself Christian...Tell me:  Why would I want to join you in your supposed "disbelief"?

Abondoning your dogma is for you to decide. Personally, I think you would be a miserable Atheist as you are entirely unprepared to think independently. For that reason, I wouldn't suggest you consider Atheism, as you're clearly unprepared to exist happily as a person witout dogma, and entirely reliant upon independent thought and decisions. As an example, see the questions you can not answer for yourself without your dogma.

stgemma wrote:

... Is this what will become of me?  

 

 

Tell me:  What motivates you?  How will disbelieving "improve" "life" (you seem already dead)?  Do you live for this world (your earthly life)?  Do you live for yourself?  For pleasure?  To escape suffering?  Have you compassion (for others - especially for strangers)?  Do you work for the common good?  What reason have you to?  Is love real or is it a chemical reaction;... what motivation do you have to me "moral" at all?  In that case, how do you even determine morality/ethics?...

You've convinced me. You'd be a miserable Atheist without your dogma. Please don't attempt to abandon it, as you would be lost without it. You have my sympathy, as you are clearly quite miserable even with your dogma. Peace be upon you.

The point wasn't about imposing rules.  The point was that a child does not understand his parent's ways.  I could also have said that when I was 4 I thought my parents were abandoning me day after day when they went to work - not understanding that it was for the good of our family that they do so.  So focused would I have been on the painful experience of my parent's leaving me for long periods of time.

And all that proves is that people react differently.  For all we know everyone's tragic experiences benefit them at some point in life even if it's their last breath of life. 

All events would be a result of god's having created things as He did, yes.  So in an abstract sense, He would be responsible indirectly.  Iow, He made man with free will - man does bad things - God is the creator of man - In an abstract sense, God is responsible for the evil.  Are all parents responsible for the evil their children do?

how so?  If he sets the universe in motion and creates man with a free will, then things can operate freely.  If I was the inventor of the car, and 10 years later the car malfunctions in some way, does it mean I, the inventor, crafted the situation?

 I believe God has provided people with ample evidence we can rationally accept. 

I think it's completely irrational to look at the world around you and think that it all just happened by some stroke of luck and everything is balanced so delicately but it's just coincidence.

I think it's irrational to dismiss 90% or something like that of the world's population who believe in God - even cultures with no contact with the rest of the world .  Why not attribute the unknown to something else?

  I think it's irrational to dismiss a good majority of peole who claim to have had supernatural experiences as being dillusional or ignorant or deceptive.  Most importantly, I believe God puts a desire in every person to seek Him.  Most people try to satiate their hunger for God by filling themselves with other things; things that can never satisfy.  I don't believe for a second that anyone who says they disbelieve God exists is truly satisfied.

It's not special pleading.  I'm showing you that you close-mindedly dismiss reasonable possibilities.  I cannot prove that God exists, and you cannot prove He does not exist.  I am open to the possibility that He does not exists.  Are you open to the possibility that He does? 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ghost Hunters.

Hey, I like that show.

Maybe I'm using the word "imposing" the wrong way. My english is not always perfect. You're drawing a parallel between what your parents did and what god does based on the idea that it's ultimately beneficial right?

 That may be the case but it would be rather presumptuous for us to assume that it was the case.

A better analogy would be if you invented a car and you knew for a fact that if you went with your original design that there would be a crash 10 years later and if you altered the design then the crash would not occur, but armed with this knowledge you decided to go with your original plans. Then yes, you crafted the situation and caused the accident.

That's not what I believe....

It's a rhetorical appeal, it doesn't matter how many people believe something....

  I don't believe for a second that anyone who says they disbelieve God exists is truly satisfied.

I haven't called anyone delusional and ignorant yet. I think it might be against the rules in this forum.

If you want to believe that all atheists are unhappy that's your right I guess but you might want to actually meet a few first before you render your final judgment.

So.....you know, based on personal experience, that we've never met people who do what Christ commands?

That doesn't make any sense. 

What should a godless society do with them?  What agreement would you all come to concerning them?  Some would insist we take care of them. Others would say euthanize them; put them out of their misery.

It depends. In general, I think we should take care of the disadvantaged.

- I help others because I enjoy helping others.

- I determine what is moral based on my conscience and reason.

This only shows that you grasp at fantasy or watched too many episodes of Medium or Ghost Hunters. My sister makes such claims though they never occur in my presence or I can't see what she claims. My mother also a Fundie like my sister was involved in psychiatry and considered my sister to suffer from schizophrenia.

  

You seem to have little grasp of the scientific method. Open minded to possibilities does not mean one accepts all possibilities can occur. One can be open to the possibility that one can transmute matter but there is no basis for considering it likely. As in your example above. Dead bodies don't seem to have the ability to communicate as they show no electrical activity in their brains nor do these dead bodies move about. No one has observed actual dead persons communicating following death other than Emails or letters sent prior to death and received subsequently afterwords.

  We repeatedly observe Muslims praying 6 times a day towards Mecca so Islam must be true. We repeatedly observe Jews wailing at the wall in Jerusalem so Judaism must be true. We repeatedly hear that Jesus died for you and me from Christians everyday though there is naught  but ancient writings that allege such without any other evidence so God is real and loves us all.

in theory under hypothetical or ideal circumstances but perhaps not in reality

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

It appears that evolution is fast becoming more than a theory.

As for a democracy changing its morality, this is an inherent risk in all democracies and all governments really, whether faithful or not. Remember, Hitler took power legally.

Note for the Godwins; I am not comparing anyone in this thread to Hitler, thus this is not an example of the Reductio-ad-Hitlerum Falacy.  I am merely using him as an example.  In all honesty, Napoleon would be a better example.

And what if the majority in this democracy vote not to take care of them and your disabled children and elderly parents' lives are in danger?

Atheists don't like when the religious majority impose their morality on society, but the alternative is a godless society with no authority other than the individual consciences of the people, and whatever the majority believes will govern the whole, whether it's right nor not, whether you agree or not.

So, is there truth to the issue or not?  Is truth relative to the individual conscience?

Or is there an authority that has revealed the answers to these issues?

stgemma wrote:

in theory under hypothetical or ideal circumstances but perhaps not in reality

That's not the sort of theory that evolution is.  It is not the sort of theory that any theory in science is.

Quote:

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

That is the sort of theory meant in regards to science.  In other words, the theory of evolution, as much as the theory of gravity, is an explanation of observed phenomenon.  We see that evolution happens.  We are able to observe a great deal of phenomenon which are best explained by the current iteration of the theory of evolution.  It is difficult to believe that you are so ignorant that when asked if you believe the theory of evolution you admit that it is 'just a theory', clearly conflating two uses of the word and when asked what a theory is, you point to evolution, post a list of definitions and pick the wrong one out.  Are you really ignorant or just intellectually dishonest?

Oh, I see.

stgemma wrote:

And what if the majority in this democracy vote not to take care of them and your disabled children and elderly parents' lives are in danger?

You mean America?  You should really be more explicit.  We're not all American here.  Further, why should your secular democracy somehow function so differently than the rest in this world that people should not be decent without the directive of god?  You realise that you're essentially discounting those countries where religion really has very little to do (at least explicitly) with politics and that humans are treated as equally capable of good (as in your democracy) without the invocation of some deity? 

Built into your society and those of other democratic countries, are the protection of rights against the will of the majority thus that a group of people who participate in that society may not be marginalized or reduced in rights compared to the majority. 

 

Also built into your society is a secular code of law that prescribes the behaviours unacceptable to society. 

 There is no doubt that these behaviours are subject to (enlightened) change; the emancipation of slaves, universal suffrage and the abolishment of homosexuality as a crime. 

 There is no doubt that the morality of society is constantly changing; that there appears to be a progression;

 that there is debate about what is in fact moral and immoral, what the words mean and how morality should be studied and applied and how it is to be accounted for.  And all this because, rather than morality being an ordained and arbitrary law of some divine law maker and judge, it is subjective to individuals and how they interact with each other

Why are you talking about truth?  What has truth got to do with morality? 

Or is there an authority that has revealed the answers to these issues?

Ostensibly no, if what you're asking is if an authority has ordained an absolute and objective code of morals.

Iow, I personally, am accepting the theory of evolution (#5 definition) as more than just a theory (last definition without a number).  Dizzying, I know.  I actually meant to edit that portion before I submitted it as it was sloppily put.

Thomathy wrote:

stgemma wrote:

And what if the majority in this democracy vote not to take care of them and your disabled children and elderly parents' lives are in danger?

You mean America?  You should really be more explicit.  We're not all American here.  Further, why should your secular democracy somehow function so differently than the rest in this world that people should not be decent without the directive of god?  You realise that you're essentially discounting those countries where religion really has very little to do (at least explicitly) with politics and that humans are treated as equally capable of good (as in your democracy) without the invocation of some deity?

First of all, I don't think America's democracy is superior to other countries' governments if that's your objection, and I also don't believe there is a perfect earthly government.

I'm using America as an example b/c, well, I live there, and I did specifically say "here in the states" in my previous post.  As for the bolded part above - that statement can be contested.  Without a rule of measure, what one considers "good" is not necessarily good.

Thomathy wrote:

Built into your society and those of other democratic countries, are the protection of rights against the will of the majority thus that a group of people who participate in that society may not be marginalized or reduced in rights compared to the majority.

This statement is unclear to me.  Are you saying that the majority's rights are protected and that groups of people who participate in that society (meaning the minority?) may not be marginalized etc.?  I'm not sure I follow your point, or that I agree with you if you're saying what I think you are...

Thomathy wrote:

Also built into your society is a secular code of law that prescribes the behaviours unacceptable to society.

And are often interpretated inconsistently, which isn't very helpful.

Thomathy wrote:

There is no doubt that these behaviours are subject to (enlightened) change; the emancipation of slaves, universal suffrage and the abolishment of homosexuality as a crime.

They are also subject to un-enlightened change.....

Thomathy wrote:

There is no doubt that the morality of society is constantly changing; that there appears to be a progression;

...and regression.....

Thomathy wrote:

That there is debate about what is in fact moral and immoral, what the words mean and how morality should be studied and applied and how it is to be accounted for.  And all this because, rather than morality being an ordained and arbitrary law of some divine law maker and judge, it is subjective to individuals and how they interact with each other

B/c morality is treated as such does not mean it is correct.  I agree that morality is treated as subjective but I don't believe it actually is.

Thomathy wrote:

Why are you talking about truth?  What has truth got to do with morality?

Again, b/c I don't believe morality is subjective.  Truth has a lot to do with morality (when you don't believe it is subjective).  With subjective morality one can justify any behavior.  But I believe some behaviors are unjustifiably wrong.

Thomathy wrote:

stgemma wrote:

Or is there an authority that has revealed the answers to these issues?

Ostensibly no, if what you're asking is if an authority has ordained an absolute and objective code of morals.

I believe God (The Authority) has ordained one - albeit there is contention as to its interpretation.

A reoccuring theme amongst Atheists is that God cannot be proven.  There was a time when we couldn't prove the earth was round too.

Atheists will accept that which can be proven and will not accept unproven claims.   That's actually a very un-scientific way of giong about things.  Even a scientist has to be open minded and

ready to accept all possibilities until they can be disproven

.  But what many Atheists do is the opposite of scientific.  They only accept that which others have proven, usually as a result of an open-mind!  Iow, let the open-minded scientists do the legwork so we know what to believe, but have a closed-minded approach to life.  THAT IS NOT FREETHINKING!!!

K, now that I've checked out more of this site, I think it's best to bid you farewell.  I didn't come here to convert anyone  - it was mostly to respond to what I had already seen on here.  Today I've looked through quite a bit of this site and realize I could have said a lot more about how ridiculous it actually is.  This site does not apper to be making an honest appeal to people with faith in God; to show them "reality" in a mature and rational way.  It's about the most irrational method I've ever seen it trying to present something.  

Regardless, I see that there are genuinely good people on here who do seem to have the right approach.  I would suggest you find a truly rational forum through which to engage in conversation.  If I can find one, maybe I'll meet you there.

 

Dodge Omni   - and no, it wasn't meant to be knee-slapping funny - it was mostly for my own amusement.

Evolution is a theory.  Or are you asking me to define what a theory is?

2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena.

It can mean many things.  For example, some people see a reasonable possibility that He exists but feign ignorance, are unwilling to give it more thought or investigation, don't want to live under an authority... 

No.  I know from personal experience that a great majority of Christendom doesn't follow Christ.  I never claimed that everyone here dismisses Christianity for that reason, but I'd wager a guess that some do.  It wasn't meant to be a blanket statement - it was to address those it applies to.

And what if the majority in this democracy vote not to take care of them and your disabled children and elderly parents' lives are in danger?  Atheists don't like when the religious majority impose their morality on society, but the alternative is a godless society with no authority other than the individual consciences of the people, and whatever the majority believes will govern the whole, whether it's right nor not, whether you agree or not.  So, is there truth to the issue or not?  Is truth relative to the individual conscience?  Or is there an authority that has revealed the answers to these issues?

Well, what if you think you're helping someone by giving them a lethal dose of medicine, and that person doesn't agree with you that you're actually helping?

That's exactly my point.  Morality is subjective iow?  How does that work?

 And the main reason I'm back today to post this in my defense is to make a point about this site:

I see a lot of "let's make the believer look stupid" tactics here and, in fact, when looking through some of the video on this site, Kelly admits that making the believer look or feel stupid is one of the common tactics used by the RRS to make people question their beliefs.  (Not very rational at all.....)  IOW, the RRS is really only interested in converting the less-intelligent people; people who aren't necessarily giving rational consideration to the issue but rather had an appeal to their emotions and sense of fitting in or wanting to appear more intelligent, etc.... 

Please....

This site is an insult to those of you who really are rational and intelligent, and association with it prevents you engaging with others of equal intelligence.  And for the rest of you: hey, if conversation with the more ignorant faithful is all you can manage, then this site if just for you.  I, for one, don't wish to be associated with it.     

That said, this site does not help the case for atheism at all. 

 

Last rant, and final appeal. 

Farewell~

Let me set the record straight about everyone's "theory" issue with me: I think the evolutionary theory is a theory, meaning, I see potential problems with it and do not consider myself an "evolutionist".  However, although I see veracity in some of the arguments which oppose the evolutionary theory, I am closer to accepting evolution than not.  For me, it is quickly becoming more than just a theory (a hypothesis).

]IOW, the RRS is really only interested in converting the less-intelligent people; people who aren't necessarily giving rational consideration to the issue but rather had an appeal to their emotions and sense of fitting in or wanting to appear more intelligent, etc....

This site is an insult to those of you who really are rational and intelligent, and association with it prevents you engaging with others of equal intelligence.

And for the rest of you: hey, if conversation with the more ignorant faithful is all you can manage, then this site if just for you.  I, for one, don't wish to be associated with it.  

That said, this site does not help the case for atheism at all.

Last rant, and final appeal. 

Farewell~

 It looks more like a Christian hate-site than an attempt at good, logical, unemotional dialogue.  I'm guessing that quite a few participants here are closet-believers with a real grudge against God.  There's a lot of anger, hatred and obvious immaturity here. 

I consider myself Christian but I have often doubted the existence of God.  The majority of participation I've seen here (on the "atheist" side) has been hostile and childish.  In fact, possibly every response I've seen from the "atheist" side has been.  I say the "majority" in case my memory serves me wrong - but I doubt that's the case. 

Tell me:  Why would I want to join you in your supposed "disbelief"?  Is this what will become of me? 

Tell me:  What motivates you? 

How will disbelieving "improve" "life" (you seem already dead)?

Do you live for this world (your earthly life)?  Do you live for yourself?  For pleasure?  To escape suffering?

Have you compassion (for others - especially for strangers)?

Do you work for the common good?

What reason have you to?

Is love real or is it a chemical reaction; a figment of our imagination? 

You people have never experienced God - that is obvious.  I tell you, most professing Christians have not known God either, and I sympathize with you for choosing to disbelieve based on your experience with nominal Christianity (for those of you who can admit this).

I can easily refute the existence of God using logic just like anyone else can.  I'm right there, for instance, with Matt Dillahunty (sp?) of the Atheist Experience...  I can totally see his point of view.  But that is using a very base and, albeit "natural" view of God, the universe, science, etc...    It clearly takes "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" the paradoxical nature of Jesus' teachings.

When I was 4 I'm sure I wondered why my parents punished me when I did what I thought was a good thing.  I didn't realize if I had gone through with what I wanted that it would have hurt me in some way or prevented me from some greater good later.  You (and I at times....) act like little children who are sulking b/c you don't "get" why your "daddy" seems so "mean" sometimes.

A tree has to endure some injury during the pruning process, but what results is a more bountiful fruitation as the damaged (pruned) areas are opened to release more branches, leaves and fruit.  If the tree had consciousness, it would not understand why it had to undergo such cruelty.  It would view the gardener as a tyrant; every so often taking his cruel weapons and inflicting such pain and damage to it.  If it knew, in advance, what a benefit the gardener's work on it would have in the near future, it would thank him; seeing him now as a great liberator or guide to its advancement. 

I'm sure life must be quite meaningless without belief.  It's all about here and now.  If so, what motivation do you have to me "moral" at all?  In that case, how do you even determine morality/ethics?  Sure, it seems quite elementary to a stagnant mind, but I assure you that the issue is quite complicated.  The 10 commandments are elementary, and yet even those are difficult to abide by at times.  Btw, Jesus raised the bar so to speak, concerning the 10 commandments.  "Whosoever looks at a woman with lust in his heart has already commited adultery...". 

Bondage?

You think the level Jesus calls us to is bondage?  I assure you that you have no idea what bondage you are already in if that's the case.  I feel very sorry for those, like many of yourselves here, who have bought into the lie of this world; that seeking pleasures and trying to escape suffering are what your temporal, earthly lives are all about.  Ever heard "it is better to give than to receive"?  I would gladly go to hell for all eternity to give my all (love) than to live comfort and ease, and I will rejoice all the while.  Shocking?  I know many of you view the "religious" as selfish.  Pity, pity, pity.  You've never met a passionate, godly person.

Even suffering is a grace; a gift; a thing to be enjoyed.  THIS is liberation!  If you walked the streets of the impoverished, would you love the diseased and filthy you encounter?  HOW ARE YOU IMPROVING MANKIND?  Would you step out of your comfort level and embrace them and love them and help them?  Would you give your life for someone you don't know at all?  Would you forgive your enemy?  Love them?  Peace in this world will never be attained, but it certainly never would be by bloodshed.  Love would end all wars.  I think you all have never encounted real, agape, unconditional love.  Such a pity!  

When you know what holiness is; when you know God (stop reading your hatred for Him into Scripture), you will see how ungrateful and proud you have been to your Creator and Father...   When you discover how much He has loved you by giving His own, human, life for you, you will fall upon your knees in repentance.  The Almighty has lowered Himself by being born a babe in this hostile world and allowing Himself to be continually mistreated, dibelieved and persecuted.  Would you do that for someone?  This was a man born into crucifixion.  I tell you, He was crucified at the moment of His birth.  God loved us so much He wanted to share in your human misery, oppression, depression, poverty, persecution....   He lived it for 33 years and it ended with the most bitter and painful death imaginable.  Why?

He gave purpose to our humanity.  By becoming like us, we can become like Him.  God made us to become like Him.  There is a purpose to this life.  What an awesome opportunity we ALL have, to become like God!  I have experienced unconditional love.  Perhaps many of you have not, for which I'm empathetic and sorrowful.  God created mankind to be made divine, like Himself.  We are all created to be with Him; a part of Him, forever.  Like the tree that doesn't comprehend why it has to undergo a pruning, we are God's creation unaware of the purpose of our suffering.  And God is not elusive.  You have evidence for these paradoxes in nature itself.  We also live in a time where God's revelation is written and widely-distrubed throughout the world.  God reaches out to everyone - I am certain of that.  Many have not recognized Him b/c they are too enamored in themselves or are too busy with self-pity (which is pride) to notice Him.  Too entangled in (what many KNOW is) a sinful lifestyle to admit they recognize God's presence.         (cont...)