> There is 200 years of science disproving the first argument. Specially Physics that shows that there is a lot that is not orderly in the universe and the same goes for Astronomy as well.

There are many elements to our universe that are spectacularly orderly:
- We can predict the cycles of the moon for millennia in either direction, past or future, because of its orderliness.
- We know the progress of the birth, life, and death of stars because of their regularity (orderliness).
- We know the seasons of our planet in all locations because of its regularity and orderliness.
- We can create a periodic table of elements, because there is consistency and orderliness in such elements.
- We can create taxonomic categories of specie classification, because biological life has patterns and an orderliness to it
- Cellular structure, microbiological machines, and even atomic structures are all ordered to function in certain ways.

In other words, I don't buy into your refutation.

> I offer you to live with me, but if you don't, I will come and kill you.

This is not what God has said. The Bible says we ourselves have chosen to separate ourselves from life. God invites us to come live with him to escape it. If we refuse his invitation, our continuing on the path of death is our own decision.

> God chose a shitty way to reveal himself if he wanted to do it

Actually, writing is the standard way that humanity not only preserves records, but gives them importance as well. If you want to make sure a contract is secure, you demand that it be in writing.

> There is no proof Jesus existed or that he resurrected

Then you're not paying attention. The existence of Jesus in history is more than adequately established by the historic records of Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, Mara bar Sarapion, Lucian, and the four Gospels. That he resurrected in the most likely conclusion given all the historical data we have at our disposal. We know for a fact that the tomb was empty, the stone was rolled away, and that the site was investigated. Alternative theories of what happened to his body all wallow in absurdity. His physical resurrection best fits the evidence and the subsequent events in 1st-century Palestine.

> There are a lot of people in todays age that come back to life after a short death. Are they all gods as well?

Absolutely not. Jesus' resurrection is not what makes him God; that He is God is what makes him God. His resurrection is one of numerous evidences to that claim.

> I would say that in 50-70 years, if we invest in technology, we could give the gift of immortality ourselfs without god

Good luck with this one. Possibly they'll invent a fountain of youth as well?

> if you believe in the Bible, why do you not believe in Kuran?

Because the Bible has historical verifiability that the Qur'an does not. Also, the Qur'an contradicts itself. Muhammad himself was criticized for some of the contradictory nature of the revelations, and so he explained it away by saying the later visions superseded the earlier ones (Sura 2.106). The problem with that is that the suras are not in chronological order, so it is unknown what supersedes what.

The Qur'an is also full of vague generalities that are extremely difficult to discern the meaning of.

> if I understand correctly both, one is like the second version of the other

Actually, the Bible and the Qur'an have very little similarity between them. Despite that Muhammad claims that the Torah of Moses, the Psalms, and the Gospels are inspired by God, the record of the Qur'an misrepresents almost every story of the Bible to which it refers: Creation, Noah and the flood, Abraham and his family, and Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Qur'an changes the story of Saul and David, and even of Jesus. The Qur'an also contradicts the Bible in its view of the nature of God, the nature of man, the way of salvation, and the afterlife. It's really impossible to believe in both.

> Or third, if you count the old testiment. Look, you are already Atheist for Ra, Thor, Kukuku on the mountain and many other gods.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

There is 200 years of science disproving the first argument. Specially Physics that shows that there is a lot that is not orderly in the universe and the same goes for Astronomy as well.

What you're saying is that God says, "I offer you to live with me, but if you don't, I will come and kill you." This sounds like terrorist, no better then a jihadist.

God chose a shitty way to reveal himself if he wanted to do it. One message going across all the humanity when you turn 10 years old would be much better and according to his powers, it's completely possible.

There is no proof Jesus existed or that he resurrected. If he wants to do that, he should make sure that something recorded it to be able to show it, so this argument is also inproper.

There are a lot of people in todays age that come back to life after a short death. Are they all gods as well? Also we do revive people through medicine and I would say that in 50-70 years, if we invest in technology, we could give the gift of immortality ourselves without god. Furthermore, none of this so far gives any evidence. It's less then a theory, because a theory at least has some evidence at all. If you say the Bible is evidence, I will reply to you that apperantly Magic exists, Orcs and Elfs fight and God of the Sun Ra exists.

Now, if you believe in the Bible, why do you not believe in Qur'an? if I understand correctly both, one is like the second version of the other. Or third, if you count the old testament. Look, you are already Atheist for Ra, Thor, Kukuku on the mountain and many other gods. What I am asking you is to take it 1 step further with the last one.

Possibly the best approach would be to review for you what Christians believe. Genesis 1 tells us that God created everything good. He made it to function properly, and he ordered the universe and the world to have purpose and meaning. Everything had its role to play that made the whole project work in an orderly and meaningful fashion. He made humanity to enjoy life with Him, to be productive, and live in harmony with the planet and with each other. They knew what was good and right, and God let them know that if they would choose what was good and right, life would be fulfilling and they could live in a love relationship with Him.

Of their own free will, they chose to go their own way and not God's way. They chose to separate themselves from the life God offered, and they rejected His presence. When one separates himself from life, the necessary result is death. All humans chose death as a consequence for their rebellion. That separation became part of the general human condition, in the same sense that if someone moves to another country and changes their citizenship, any children born to them are now citizens of the new country and are separated, by necessity, from the former country.

At this time God initiated a plan to bring people back into relationship with Himself. He still loved them, despite their rebellion, and took steps to reveal Himself to them, even in their separation, and to make it possible for people to live in a love relationship with God.

This revelation and plan is what the Bible is about. God spoke directly to some people, and at other times sent messengers to straighten them out. He reminded them of his love, and warned them that continuing in rebellion would bring its own bad consequences. He had some men write his messages down to be preserved for future generations, and he gave a law to teach right from wrong, and to help people understand what it means to love God and be loved by him.

In the New Testament we are told about God's best attempt to restore this relationship of love with him. God came to earth himself, in the person of Jesus, to show people how to live, to teach us about God, and to experience death in our place so that we could have life. When Jesus rose from the dead, it proved that God was even more powerful than death, and that death could be conquered, and anyone who would accept this free gift of Jesus' death for them could be reunited with God in love relationship.

The resurrection of Jesus is the key to the whole project. It answers the question of "How do I know there's a God?" Only God could conquer death and forgive sins. It answers the question of "Was Jesus really God?" No human can come back to life by their own power. It answers the question of "Is Christianity true?" Anybody can claim anything they want about religion, but when somebody comes back from the dead, it warrants attention and proves a point.

God invites every human being to come and be in relationship with him. What is needed is to repent from our sins (to turn away from the choice of rejection of God, separation from him, and rebellion against him), to believe in Jesus as God who loves us and died to take our place, and to obey what God tells us, not only as a way of living right but also as a way of showing our love for him. The result is that God comes to live inside of us; He gives us eternal life, and we are no longer subject to death; He redeems our sin nature and makes us new creations, giving us the nature of Jesus; He gives us meaning in life; our sins are forgiven, and we have new life in Christ.

That is what my religion preaches.

To the first point, no. It's a fatherly protection of your own genetics and I support this and I would do this not only for my own kids, when I have one, but I would support it today or my sister's kids.

The second place where you put me in the shoes of a son. This is slightly different. I will forever hate him for that. If I do it as a father, I am doing it accepting that my son will hate me for it, because I myself would forever hate him for doing what he did. This leaves a person, while yes, the father would do it and science give s a reason why, leaves the son with immence guilt for the rest of his life and his son would, or at least I would hate my father for it. For not letting me take responsibility for my life.

Another thing I would like to stress is that there is a difference between legal process and country invading us. If country is invading us, I would hide the whole family to make sure it will be highly improbable for the enemy to find and if necessary, move them away from the location they occupy.

Based on what you know about me so far, if I do not accept Jesus and I die before I do (Which will happen unless new evidence comes out), and you are right, do you think as a person, as a fellow human being God should punish me? Because this is what your religion is preaching. Now, this might not be your belief, but I am open to hear it.

I am disconnected from god, but most people that know me will say that I have strong moral value. I would never condemn anyone. I will try to educate and I strive for full equality between genders, races and then further push for morality towards animals, the planet and then even further about the correct morally investments for the future.

I do believe actually that the second to last statement is not fully true. While, yes, the crime rates and terrorist attacks are no laughing matter, they are being lower year by year with rational thinking and proper preparation and protection, which by the way, is not due to God and God has no place in the discussion about the extermination of the "evil" which I do not believe it exists. I believe that every single person has the good and bad in him and we are all morally grey in the different shades.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate honest and respectful dialogue. Also, thank you for your service to your community as a firefighter. There are so many dangers and risks, and people who take on such risks need to be honored. So I honor you for taking that role.

I also have signed up for organ donation. I obviously won't need my body any more—why not make any parts of it available to those who can benefit from it?

Let me propose this situation. Suppose a hostile army invades our country and takes it over. Suppose part of their "cleansing" of the population (maybe similar to what Mao Tse Tung did in China) is to go house to house and gather up the artists for execution. Suppose my son is an artist, and they come to my house. When the knock on the door and ask for Joe Smith, before my son can respond I step to the door and say, "I am Joe Smith," and they take me away and execute me. Have I done a sinful or a noble thing?

Also, let's talk about Christ's substitution for you. It's not that you don't deserve to be punished for the wrongs you have done, nor that he is not allowing you to take responsibility for your actions. According to the Bible, it's Jesus' love for you that motivates him to step up to the door and say, "Take me instead." If your father did that for you, you might not allow it, and you might not be pleased (not wanting to be without your father or for him to be executed in your place), but you wouldn't be disappointed. You wouldn't lose respect for him. I dare suggest that it would increase your respect for him.

I know the Bible is not the first or the only book about morality. It doesn't claim to be a guide about moral philosophy; it claims to be a guide of the truth about God and humanity, and of salvation and judgment. In the process, it does have much to say about morality. to be sure, though, salvation is not to be confused with "being good" and judgment with being bad. Salvation is for those who turn to Jesus in love, accept his free gift of salvation, and let him change their nature from that of sin to that of righteousness.

I happen to think it's pretty obvious, just by looking at the world around us, to know that people are not born good. The Bible teaches not that they are born evil, but that they are born separated from the life of God and disconnected from him. It's that disconnect that allows sin to wreak havoc on our lives. We see horrific things happening in the world every day now, with shootings, explosions, trucks plowing through crowds of innocent people, and corruption in business and politics. It's clear to me that the world is not improving. All of our learning, technology, philosophies, advances in science, and communications—and everything's getting worse. It's a problem of the soul, in my opinion (and the Bible's teaching). All the "progress" doesn't change the heart.

But Jesus doesn't need to be sacrificed for every generation. The book of Hebrews tells us that as a representative of both divinity and humanity his death provides the possibility of atonement for all people at all times of history. Once is good for all.

In fact, I did so myself. I was a volunteer firefighter for my country. Although it never became necessary I was registered and trained firefighter as well. I know the feeling of your father going out on duty and many times I wanted to follow him in the fire to increase his odds of survival, but instead I had to stay home and hope that the dice hits the good odds for my family. Sorry. I got kinda emotional there.

Anyway, let me go back a bit. My father would not go if he knows he will die. He goes if he knows that he can help and there is a chance of survival. No fireman with his sense will suicide for chance of being successful, although I would argue that in some cases, against all logic, this has happened and I consider those personal heroes. Now, do I consider this a suicide? Yes, so my first point stands.

Also, my body is donated. The moment I turned 18 I went to the hospital to sign the papers. If I die, no matter what reason, according to my will, my body is to be used in anything that science requires, without a need for burial. This includes being cut up or done—anything—because I find no reason for people not to subject their body, although I do see their point and I respect everyone's decisions and I will not argue against that decision.

The problem is, I do not believe that this is a moral thing. Let's say that everything about it is true, and Jesus died for our sins. I do not want this to be on my conscience. I prefer, if he existed as a person, to live and for me to be judged based on my sins instead of using a scapegoat. If it is true, I would be deeply dissapointed in him for not allowing me to take responsibility as a sensible man. I do not respect him robbing me from this right that I WANT TO TAKE. (assuming everything is true).

Here I argue, though, that (assuming there is God and it is the Christian god, because those are 2 separate debates on their own):
God sacrificing his god made him sinful, thus I lose respect towards him.

His son not allowing me to stand on trial for my own sins and defend myself, instead making me into partner in crime, is robbing me of my self-identity and my self-respect. If it's true and when I die and go ahead to be judged for my soul and I find that he did do this, I would immediately lose all respect towards myself and ask "GOD" to destroy my soul for eternity.

I personally feel offended. I have not been born at that time and I believe in the basic virtue of not condemning the son for the sins of the father. Thus, all children are born without Sin. Does this mean that one Jesus needs to be sacrificied for every generation?

Now, I see a lot of interesting debate about morality. While I do agree, if I selectively look at the Bible (and I stress "selectively"), I do find some things that are very beautiful as far as morality, but the Bible is not the first book to accompany those, so I do not believe it should claim them.

I have read the Qur'an, The Bible (new and old testament), The Book of Ra, The book of death, and many other holy books, since I was obsessed when I was little under what religion I fall. My Mother and Father are Christians. Although to be honest, it's not what it was, and I might have converted them a bit more to Atheism just by being near them and explaining things.

So, I will stop here since I am getting too much off the point and wait for your reply. Although, I would to end on a good point. I do like your way of expression and showing that you are open to talk. In other words, I respect you as a person.

Your points are excellent. You must be aware that Jesus came here, in the same spirit, "to save people." Yes, Jesus did know he was going to die, as do many people who take on missions of compassion or duty to save others. Since your dad is a firefighter, you must also know that at times noble people volunteer for action that they know will be fatal—they consider the risk and take that action—because they do it out of love and duty. The stories of such heroes are plentiful. The world is not worthy of them. We have heard of doctors who enter infected areas, knowing it will mean their demise, but they do it for noble and worthy reasons. People offer their bodies to medical experiments knowing it will help future generations. These are not, as the original poster intimidated, absurdities or oxymoronic nonsense, but actions of deep compassion and nobility.

Remember, Jesus did not kill himself, and that's a huge difference for our conversation. He did knowingly enter a situation he knew would be fatal for the most compassionate motive possible: to save the world. It's an action of love and nobility, not one of nonsense and absurdity.

I will address only point 3 here. The firefighters went there to save people. They knew the risk, but did not know it's a suicide and it was not suicide. My father is a firefighter, so do not go there. Same goes for the soldier. The soldier does not know if he will survive or not. He considers the risks and takes action. That's different then accepting a 100% sure death. It's a huge difference. Accepting and Self-imposing that death on one's self is suicide. Taking a chance of 50/50 or even 70/30 is not a suicide.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Nothing you said is what I am saying, what Christians believe, or what happened.

1. I'm NOT saying it's OK to commit suicide. I never close to saying, hinting, or implying anything like that.

2. The Bible does NOT teach that if you commit suicide you go to hell. Nor did I ever say, hint, or imply anything like that.

3. Jesus not preventing his death is NOT suicide. The firefighters who ascended the Twin Towers to rescue citizens very well knew they could be climbing to their deaths, which was in fact the case. These were not actions of suicide, but of heroism. A soldier who crosses a field being strafed with gunfire to save a buddy is not guilty of suicide, but of compassion, even though he knows death is likely. Jesus didn't take his own life, but he did lay it down willingly. It was not an act of suicide, but of sacrificial love.

Wait, wait, wait. I have a question here. You are saying that it's okay to commit suicide, but in the same ideology, if you commit suicide you go to hell. Does this mean that Jesus is in hell, since he effectively did not try to prevent his death?