Unbelievers - You're dead and before God on Judgement Day

[apothanein kerdos]

You just said yourself Adam and Even did not know the consequence of their actions. Their decision to eat the apple was not a premeditated choice to give up perfection, it was plain old stupidity/insanity/selfishness. It was a bad choice--so bad it tainted all humans--and yet you allege perfect beings did it?

Again, you try to uphold your strawman -

What I stated is that Adam and Eve did not know the consequences in an a posteri[/a] manner - they had not experienced them. They certainly had a priori knowledge via God warning them of the consequences. I will get to perfection in a bit...you shot yourself in the foot on it.

"Perfect" is an absolute term. A perfect circle cannot and will not be a square. A perfect being cannot and will not be imperfect. It is that simple. Your argument that perfect things must be potentially imperfect is utterly paradoxical.

Not at all, you have defined perfection and therefore lost your argument.

You use the concept of a perfect circle and how it cannot be a square. Thus, if I took a perfect circle and attempted to apply it to an area where a perfect square would be needed, it would be quite imperfect. Thus, when referring to objects within creation it is safe to say that perfection can only exist so long as it is perfect for its form and function.

Adam and Eve were perfect in their morality, form, and function as humans - they were not epistemologically perfect and therefore did not fully understand (via experience) what would occur. Now, regardless of if we act out of ignorance or not, we are still guilty of what we did. If I come from a culture where we don't know much about killing and murder someone in the United States, regardless of my ignorance I would still be tried for murder, and rightfully so. Ignorance is never an excuse.

Regardless, Adam and Eve were not 100% ignorant, though they were not 100% perfect in their epistemology. Perfect in form and function but not in totality. This is why we can consider them perfect and yet capable of slipping into an imperfect state. You are seeking perfection in totality when this would be absurd.

Why would they? Why would a perfect creature be anything other than perfect? Why would A suddenly not be A, but B?

Because it would have the ability to choose to do so. This is a key point that you are repeating without really addressing the issue. If a perfect being cannot become imperfect, then it is not perfect to begin with because it is now severely limited.

If God did not want us to make a choice, he would not have given us the ability to make that choice. Our choice to sin is so severe, in his eyes, that it must be punished eternally in Hell. Of course, God is all-knowing and, when he gave humans the ability to commit sin, he would have known this choice would bring the world great pain and suffering. He knew he would actually have to punish human souls eternally for making this choice. But he created it anyway. But you say that's OK, because he has offered us a solution. Thus you implicitly acknowledge there is a problem. But if God is really both all-powerful and all-knowing, there would never be a problem.

Again, have you read the essays I presented? I'm guessing you haven't because both address this quite well. I asked you to read them, this is not a hard task. The reason I ask is that I don't like debating people who are not up to speed on things and having to answer questions that have been answered by others - in other words, I'm not your research table. If you really want answers, I've given you two articles you can look through.

Also, free will can exist without sin. Unless I'm wrong, Adam and Eve had free will even before they had the ability to commit sin. God could have created a world in which humans could still make their own decisions, but they could not make bad ones. Surely, God could have made humans who would not disobey Him, which would not have eaten the apple (thus "creating" sin), but which could still make other decisions.

And in this world, how would we truly know what love, goodness, happiness, and other vital aspects of humanity are?

The irony is that though the problem of evil can cause bumps in the road for Christianity, it is a mountain for atheists to climb. In order to abhor evil or use some form of a moral construct outside of a hypothetical atheists have to acknowledge evil...which means they acknowledge something is wrong. If something is wrong then there must be a "right" way for it to be done. For instance, we see a man murder a woman and all of us (atheists and Christians alike) acknowledge that evil has just occurred. The atheist can turn to the Christian and question, "Why did your God allow this?" The Christian is left with two options - either explain why God allowed it, or turn to the atheist and ask, "How can you acknowledge evil?"

Evil means something is not right, as I stated. If something is not right then there is an ideal of how something should be or how something once was. If it is how something once was, then atheists must explain to us how a perfect world formed out of evolution. There is not a single atheist I know of that will take this part. Thus, in reality, we are left with discussing good and evil as ideals and constructs. Where did these come from? How can an atheist truly explain evil whilst defining good when there is no reasoning behind either? We look to the murdered woman again and realize that the man did this in order to steal her money so he could pay for food. He was merely surviving - how can we now call his action evil when he did what occurs in the animal kingdom on a daily basis?

Without going too much further, the problem of evil can cause Christians to stumble and think deep - but it is devastating to atheism.

[Smalcald]

What I mean is that we do have horrible death and destruction that we have created on this earth, the millions of babies that have died the wars that have killed so many innocents, on and on. Without God, those people are dead and in hell, for hell are but the grave, eternal doom, the blackness of darkness forever.

If there is an earthquake, it is not anyone's fault. Nobody made the earthquake happen.

During the earthquake, a building collapses and a 6 month old baby is trapped and takes a day to die. In pain and agony. Broken bones. Starvation. Thirst.

The baby is innocent. God could have done so many things. he could have had the baby's mother take it for a walk. He could have had a beam fall strategically, forming a barrier to protect the baby till the rescuers came.

It's a hypothetical baby, but something like it has happened. In differing ways, in differing circumstances.

The point is that there is needless suffering of innocents. Caused by no-one. And not prevented by the omniscient, omnipotent God.

And. If ever I am before him. I will want him to explain it to me before he condemns me.

But don't you see Stewart, without God, that baby IS indeed in the death of hell, gone forever. With God, the baby has life, eternal life even with that earthquake. This earth today is only a tiny percentage of our life, and yes it does contain some suffering. But most of our life, the vast vast expanse of our time will not be spent on this earth, and neither will that baby, who is now with Christ.

This makes no sense to me. The baby couldn't have accepted Christ, and so it would go to Hell. At the very least, there was no reason to make it feel pain before it died; one swift blow to the head would've been kinder than agony.

But back to the point about Hell. Christians have said to me that babies don't go to hell, because the Bible says that God excercises judgement on who goes where, because he is Just. But the Bible also states that the only way into Heaven is by accepting Christ. This means one of two things: either the judgement verse is meant generally only, so babies and other innocents go to hell, or it is possible that God might excercise a similar judgement on behalf of an adult non-Christian and let them into Heaven, which means it's a lie that the only way to Heaven is by accepting Christ. Come to think of it, that verse is still a lie if he lets babies into Heaven. The point being, that's one whopping contradiction to me. Either God is cruel (and therefore unJust) and lets innocents burn in hell for eternity, or the Bible contradicts itself. I can't see any way around that.

Stew, have you ever read the Book of Job?

I've always found the Book of Job pretty terrible. There's just no good reason for why God torments him so - the man was devout. God should have had no need to prove himself to Satan, nor should he have needed to torment Job in order to find out whether he was truly pious if he actually was omnipotent. On top of that, this is essentially God killing innocents - Job's family - to prove a point to the devil. How is that either Just or Merciful?

Hi Secondeve.

ahh I think you are talking about the minority of Christians who believe that you must have some sort of born again experience and "accept" Christ etc by some sort of action on our part which says we are good and those who don't "accept" Christ are bad.

Most Christians in history and in the world today, in the Eastern Church, Roman Catholics, Lutheran's, etc believe that we are saved by Christ, not by some sort of decision we make. Christ creates our faith Himself working through the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in scripture about babies going to hell; there is also evidence that all human beings will have an equal chance to be part of the grace Christ offer's for free. Now there is hell and some people will actively choose to reject the free gift of the grace of Christ, I don't know how this could be, but I think it is true. We see some people who for just pride reasons would refuse to believe in Christ if He stood right in front of them. Don't form your view of the Christian faith on only one set of Evangelical Christians living in the US.

Now the atheist says that none of that matters you are all going to hell, we are all going to hell and the entire existence we live in is essentially meaningless. Because we know that this physical world is dying, we know that the sun will explode at some point, we know that physical death without Christ is eternal. Hell is often portrayed in scripture as simply eternal death, nothingness forever. Compared to living and loving in eternity, of course this is hell. My point is in all of those instances of injustice and innocents dying, without Christ then yes it really is horrible.

[EricH]

Don't you think it would be kinda petty for the creator of the universe to comdemn someone for not believing because of the lack of evidence?Secondly if he really exists and he really is a loving God he is just going to say ah shucks , lets be friends.

Didn't you ever ask yourselves just WHY is it so important to just

"believe"? I mean where is the substance in that? If a person lives a moral life and unintentionally mimics the life of Jesus yet doesn't believe do you really think he is going to hell because he doesn't "believe"? I would hope the creator of the universe if there is one is above the petty emotional hangups of humans like demanding worship , and professed belief or he will stomp and shout.

Romans chapter 2 addresses this idea.

[ayin jade]

Romans 1

20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.

21 Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools

23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.

25 For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

28 And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 undiscerning, perfidious, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;

32 who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them .

Romans 2

1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, everyone who judges; for in that in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge do the same things.

2 But know that the judgment of God is according to truth on those who practice such things.

3 And, O man, the one judging those who do such things, and practice them, do you think this, that you shall escape the judgment of God?

4 Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, and the forbearance and long-suffering, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

5 But according to your hardness and your impenitent heart, do you treasure up wrath for yourself in a day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

6 who will render to each according to his works;

7 indeed to those who with patience in good work are seeking for glory, and honor, and incorruptibility, everlasting life.

8 But to those who indeed disobeying the truth out of self-seeking, and obeying unrighteousness, will be anger and wrath,

9 tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man who has worked out evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Greek.

10 But He will give glory, honor and peace to every man who works good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

11 For there is no respect of faces with God.

12 For as many as sinned without Law will also perish without Law. And as many as have sinned within Law shall be judged through Law.

13 For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when the nations, who do not have the Law, do by nature the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law unto themselves;

15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and the thoughts between one another accusing or even excusing one another,

16 in a day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

[Guest mapletechie]

What I mean is that we do have horrible death and destruction that we have created on this earth, the millions of babies that have died the wars that have killed so many innocents, on and on. Without God, those people are dead and in hell, for hell are but the grave, eternal doom, the blackness of darkness forever.

If there is an earthquake, it is not anyone's fault. Nobody made the earthquake happen.

During the earthquake, a building collapses and a 6 month old baby is trapped and takes a day to die. In pain and agony. Broken bones. Starvation. Thirst.

The baby is innocent. God could have done so many things. he could have had the baby's mother take it for a walk. He could have had a beam fall strategically, forming a barrier to protect the baby till the rescuers came.

It's a hypothetical baby, but something like it has happened. In differing ways, in differing circumstances.

The point is that there is needless suffering of innocents. Caused by no-one. And not prevented by the omniscient, omnipotent God.

And. If ever I am before him. I will want him to explain it to me before he condemns me.

But don't you see Stewart, without God, that baby IS indeed in the death of hell, gone forever. With God, the baby has life, eternal life even with that earthquake. This earth today is only a tiny percentage of our life, and yes it does contain some suffering. But most of our life, the vast vast expanse of our time will not be spent on this earth, and neither will that baby, who is now with Christ.

This makes no sense to me. The baby couldn't have accepted Christ, and so it would go to Hell. At the very least, there was no reason to make it feel pain before it died; one swift blow to the head would've been kinder than agony.

But back to the point about Hell. Christians have said to me that babies don't go to hell, because the Bible says that God excercises judgement on who goes where, because he is Just. But the Bible also states that the only way into Heaven is by accepting Christ. This means one of two things: either the judgement verse is meant generally only, so babies and other innocents go to hell, or it is possible that God might excercise a similar judgement on behalf of an adult non-Christian and let them into Heaven, which means it's a lie that the only way to Heaven is by accepting Christ. Come to think of it, that verse is still a lie if he lets babies into Heaven. The point being, that's one whopping contradiction to me. Either God is cruel (and therefore unJust) and lets innocents burn in hell for eternity, or the Bible contradicts itself. I can't see any way around that.

Stew, have you ever read the Book of Job?

I've always found the Book of Job pretty terrible. There's just no good reason for why God torments him so - the man was devout. God should have had no need to prove himself to Satan, nor should he have needed to torment Job in order to find out whether he was truly pious if he actually was omnipotent. On top of that, this is essentially God killing innocents - Job's family - to prove a point to the devil. How is that either Just or Merciful?

Hi Secondeve.

ahh I think you are talking about the minority of Christians who believe that you must have some sort of born again experience and "accept" Christ etc by some sort of action on our part which says we are good and those who don't "accept" Christ are bad.

Most Christians in history and in the world today, in the Eastern Church, Roman Catholics, Lutheran's, etc believe that we are saved by Christ, not by some sort of decision we make. Christ creates our faith Himself working through the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in scripture about babies going to hell; there is also evidence that all human beings will have an equal chance to be part of the grace Christ offer's for free. Now there is hell and some people will actively choose to reject the free gift of the grace of Christ, I don't know how this could be, but I think it is true. We see some people who for just pride reasons would refuse to believe in Christ if He stood right in front of them. Don't form your view of the Christian faith on only one set of Evangelical Christians living in the US.

Now the atheist says that none of that matters you are all going to hell, we are all going to hell and the entire existence we live in is essentially meaningless. Because we know that this physical world is dying, we know that the sun will explode at some point, we know that physical death without Christ is eternal. Hell is often portrayed in scripture as simply eternal death, nothingness forever. Compared to living and loving in eternity, of course this is hell. My point is in all of those instances of injustice and innocents dying, without Christ then yes it really is horrible.

I never said it was comfortabe. As an atheists, it sometimes bothers me that there is no "life after death", it bothers me as much as any Christian. But I can't deceive myself and make myself believe something just because I'm scared.

This is a classic appeal to emotion. Believing what one wants to believe rather than what's true for the sake of comfort.

Edited November 1, 2006 by mapletechie

[Ovedya]

A man once created a robot with the latest technology in Artificial Intelligence. The robot could carry out specific tasks, but could also learn from its mistakes. eventually, as the robot became more and more intelligent, it learned to make decisions which could affect its ability to learn. For example, it could either decide to do the laundry, or not. The consequences of its actions or inactions would produce results that were either positive or negative.

Now, the inventor, knowing that both positive and negative reinforcements aid in the learning process, allowed his robot to both succeed and fail in his tasks without intervention, in order to facilitate better learning and understanding. If help was needed at any time the robot was told to simply come to the inventor and ask. At first the robot asked many questions and relied upon the inventor's suggestions and directions. But eventually the robot relied less and less upon the inventor, chosing instead to risk the consequences of its own actions - whether positive or negative. As time went on the robot became more and more self-reliant, and eventually one day he decided that he no longer needed the inventor for anything. He reasoned within himself that he was, in fact, more perfect and more efficient than the inventor in every way. He had greater intelligence, and could make better decisions than the inventor.

One day the robot reasoned that he should reproduce more of his kind, and rid the world of humanity. Humanity was imperfect after all, and the world would be a better place with more robots that could think, reason, and act by themselves, without the need for an inventor. So he went out to the hardware store to purchase the parts he would need to make his first replica.

When the robot arrived at the store he reasoned that he should not have to pay for the parts he needed because, after all, he was above human morality and law. He was perfect in every way, so he could do just as he pleased at all times. When protest was made at the checkout counter the robot became enraged, and fight ensued between the store's clerks and the robot. When the fight was finally broken up by police, two clerks were badly injured and one was killed. The robot was taken by force to jail, and was eventually dismantled.

In the end, the inventor was placed on trial for creating a robot that violated the law and killed a human. When asked by the prosecution why he had created such a monster, the inventor only said that he had created a robot that could think, reason, and make decisions for himself. He wasn't responsible for creating a monster. That robot was solely responsible for his own actions. Therefore, the inventor held that he was completely innocent of the charges.

This may seem like a poor example. But I would like to submit that those who accuse God of creating evil, or who accuse God of creating man with all his flaws miss the point completely. God created man perfect, without sin, completely innocent. It was man that decided to rebel against God. It was man that made the decision to leave His creator's side and deny Him time and time again.

If man is responsible for man's problems, then it is man - not God - who should seek to cure his own illness. God has already provided a way for man to return to Him. It is up to man to take His way of salvation.

[Guest mapletechie]

A man once created a robot with the latest technology in Artificial Intelligence. The robot could carry out specific tasks, but could also learn from its mistakes. eventually, as the robot became more and more intelligent, it learned to make decisions which could affect its ability to learn. For example, it could either decide to do the laundry, or not. The consequences of its actions or inactions would produce results that were either positive or negative.

Now, the inventor, knowing that both positive and negative reinforcements aid in the learning process, allowed his robot to both succeed and fail in his tasks without intervention, in order to facilitate better learning and understanding. If help was needed at any time the robot was told to simply come to the inventor and ask. At first the robot asked many questions and relied upon the inventor's suggestions and directions. But eventually the robot relied less and less upon the inventor, chosing instead to risk the consequences of its own actions - whether positive or negative. As time went on the robot became more and more self-reliant, and eventually one day he decided that he no longer needed the inventor for anything. He reasoned within himself that he was, in fact, more perfect and more efficient than the inventor in every way. He had greater intelligence, and could make better decisions than the inventor.

One day the robot reasoned that he should reproduce more of his kind, and rid the world of humanity. Humanity was imperfect after all, and the world would be a better place with more robots that could think, reason, and act by themselves, without the need for an inventor. So he went out to the hardware store to purchase the parts he would need to make his first replica.

When the robot arrived at the store he reasoned that he should not have to pay for the parts he needed because, after all, he was above human morality and law. He was perfect in every way, so he could do just as he pleased at all times. When protest was made at the checkout counter the robot became enraged, and fight ensued between the store's clerks and the robot. When the fight was finally broken up by police, two clerks were badly injured and one was killed. The robot was taken by force to jail, and was eventually dismantled.

In the end, the inventor was placed on trial for creating a robot that violated the law and killed a human. When asked by the prosecution why he had created such a monster, the inventor only said that he had created a robot that could think, reason, and make decisions for himself. He wasn't responsible for creating a monster. That robot was solely responsible for his own actions. Therefore, the inventor held that he was completely innocent of the charges.

This may seem like a poor example. But I would like to submit that those who accuse God of creating evil, or who accuse God of creating man with all his flaws miss the point completely. God created man perfect, without sin, completely innocent. It was man that decided to rebel against God. It was man that made the decision to leave His creator's side and deny Him time and time again.

If man is responsible for man's problems, then it is man - not God - who should seek to cure his own illness. God has already provided a way for man to return to Him. It is up to man to take His way of salvation.

A perfectly programmed robot could never do what it's not supposed to do. You watch too many Sci-fi movies. It's like saying a perfect operating system could have bugs and security holes and still be perfect. It's a contradiction.

For something to be perfect there can be no room for improvement.

Edited November 1, 2006 by mapletechie

[Ovedya]

A man once created a robot with the latest technology in Artificial Intelligence. The robot could carry out specific tasks, but could also learn from its mistakes. eventually, as the robot became more and more intelligent, it learned to make decisions which could affect its ability to learn. For example, it could either decide to do the laundry, or not. The consequences of its actions or inactions would produce results that were either positive or negative.

Now, the inventor, knowing that both positive and negative reinforcements aid in the learning process, allowed his robot to both succeed and fail in his tasks without intervention, in order to facilitate better learning and understanding. If help was needed at any time the robot was told to simply come to the inventor and ask. At first the robot asked many questions and relied upon the inventor's suggestions and directions. But eventually the robot relied less and less upon the inventor, chosing instead to risk the consequences of its own actions - whether positive or negative. As time went on the robot became more and more self-reliant, and eventually one day he decided that he no longer needed the inventor for anything. He reasoned within himself that he was, in fact, more perfect and more efficient than the inventor in every way. He had greater intelligence, and could make better decisions than the inventor.

One day the robot reasoned that he should reproduce more of his kind, and rid the world of humanity. Humanity was imperfect after all, and the world would be a better place with more robots that could think, reason, and act by themselves, without the need for an inventor. So he went out to the hardware store to purchase the parts he would need to make his first replica.

When the robot arrived at the store he reasoned that he should not have to pay for the parts he needed because, after all, he was above human morality and law. He was perfect in every way, so he could do just as he pleased at all times. When protest was made at the checkout counter the robot became enraged, and fight ensued between the store's clerks and the robot. When the fight was finally broken up by police, two clerks were badly injured and one was killed. The robot was taken by force to jail, and was eventually dismantled.

In the end, the inventor was placed on trial for creating a robot that violated the law and killed a human. When asked by the prosecution why he had created such a monster, the inventor only said that he had created a robot that could think, reason, and make decisions for himself. He wasn't responsible for creating a monster. That robot was solely responsible for his own actions. Therefore, the inventor held that he was completely innocent of the charges.

This may seem like a poor example. But I would like to submit that those who accuse God of creating evil, or who accuse God of creating man with all his flaws miss the point completely. God created man perfect, without sin, completely innocent. It was man that decided to rebel against God. It was man that made the decision to leave His creator's side and deny Him time and time again.

If man is responsible for man's problems, then it is man - not God - who should seek to cure his own illness. God has already provided a way for man to return to Him. It is up to man to take His way of salvation.

A perfectly programmed robot could never do what it's not supposed to do. You watch too many Sci-fi movies. It's like saying a perfect operating system could have bugs and security holes and still be perfect. It's a contradiction.

For something to be perfect there can be no room for improvement.

Choice is a part of perfection.

[apothanein kerdos]

What? How could their perfect morality lead them to disobey God? Didn't he tell them they would die if they ate the apple? And please, define "epistomologically perfect".

Again, they were morally perfect in that they had not experienced sin - this inevitably affects their epistemological view of morality (which shapes our morality). Though they had not experienced sin, they were given the option and thus chose sin. They were warned but did not have an absolute knowledge of what would occur - though they had an idea they didn't know the full effects because they had not been through it.

As for epistemologically perfect - this means that they did not hold absolute knowledge. To have a perfect epistemology one would need to understand absolutely everything in the universe, which Adam and Eve did not. Therefore they were not perfect in this aspect but instead perfect in their function and form.

I disagree. While you can face legal consequences for disobeying rules, you should not be morally accountable for things you don't know about. There's a difference between law and morality, just like there's a difference between state governments and God Himself. I think, given the limitlessness of God's power and knowledge, he would try Adam and Eve more fairly than worldly courts. He would know and understand their ignorance--indeed, he would have anticipated it--and he would forgive them. Not exile them and punish their future offspring.

Admittedly it was a poor example - a better one would be that he had an idea of the consequence but not a full understanding.

Regardless, you keep playing off this idea that Adam and Eve were ignorant - they were not ignorant. God told them there would be consequences (death) if they ate the fruit. The reason they did, however, is they believed (this is there the epistemological imperfection comes into play) that they could overpower this. Does this mean they were not perfect? No, it merely means they chose to abandon the moral perfection they had.

So a person whose physical, mental, geographical, or temporal condition renders them ignorant of Christ is bound for Hell?

Ignorance should be defined as the capability to have knowledge but lacking. Thus a person with the inability to mentally understand Christ would be exempt - even if he heard the message he could not possibly understand it. A person that is ignorant through location, however, can understand it. In fact, look at all the world religions and notice that the common theme is there is something wrong. Even in Hinduism which seeks to deny evil as an actual source they must still admit something is wrong for we do not start in a higher spot - we begin in a lower one.

This deserves its own topic really.

I have not read them. One of the articles is over 50 pages. The reason I am still awake is the chemistry exam that awaits me tomorrow morning.

Then the discussion is over until you read them. I don't like to track back over what is readily available.

[billie]

Is it a coincidence that a higher percentage of people with high-functioning autism such as Bill Gates and Einstein reject(ed) organized religion such as Christianity? These are also two very intelligent people. Autism is usually characterized by a lack of emotional functioning, so "appeal to emotion" doesn't work for autistic individuals. They also tend to be very logical, and good systemizers, which leads them to interests in math, science, and technology.

http://www.jonathans-stories.com/non-ficti...diagnosing.html

There's no proof anywhere of any kind that either Einstein or Gates are/were autistic.