Why do unbelievers hate christians most?

Tel Rinsiel asked about the satan pROBLEM< yet it's re-routed through unbelieving minds as the God problem. I will clarify if oNLY for one time in order to show a side of truth to this.
It seems your inner-fruitcake gives my silencer the silence. But that's okay - I seek new AND clever methods in foreseeing the many probabilities in the banishment prospect. Even when Brad was lied to he was speaking truth. While the unarticulate pieman in my spyware didn't increase the syn matrix - I garnished a lonesome path of culprit promise. This can and could even be understood through natural processes untill they filter my transparent pallet. Rejection from banish request = Fruit input chance waves on the Theory /method. Untill then I'll rub a dub dub but not with a scrubbing brush. Minnemoose is easily wound up and watched "GO" with a certain push flush in the old - tush wush. Untill rendered Sci-fi I'll clean up the exuberant belidgerent monkey taxation manifold in your treatment oinment NOT deployment..Ho hum - yes then, goodbye untill other methods are capable. IOW - satan is game for expenditure benditure. He will bend rather than mend, he will "fruitcake" a universe where a unique "right" can be applied. Think in pink it mite help. If I go up I can go down, if I can give you i can "take" FROM YOU> Here enters the problem but not forever. To consolidate you frail and goodly pinky requires a grate expense of TIME, notice that time is relevant wen busy in this uni-versed. I say that despite the pleasantries your mind is hard to "fix" without it OPEN. But hey, that's the take when you have a mind that wants to understand that which it objects to and sets to,--> ridding!WHEN on the philosophy side of this I came across the Unseul philosophy, though I think he meant well, he had good for selfish and bad for selfish,. A and B equaled evolution. But there was only room for borrowing a plow share whisker care in sted of the "read" and accepted Theory of BibleGod. This en bubbled the category of confusion somewhat, then i just reset it as blatant want on the matter. Ho hum.

This is only half remember, i Didn't even "SHOOT" at the full story. It's complex including speculation/guesswork.

For paranoid maniac notebook: Mike, Paul K speaks lies against you, put him on your list of evil evos.Ps. WEll done for staying on topic!This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-12-2004 08:36 PM

Even if God said - Michael, kill your child as a sacrifice, I doubt I could do the thing. I lack Abraham's faith. Next question: Did God kill Izaac? Oops - game, set, match!

Mike, B2P is at it again. He's posted anothr topic that seems to make him sound like an atheist friendly preacher.

I mean, I think he does believe in the bible, about one sentence in it. But then, we have many bibles according to teenagers. They usually go like this; "It's my opinion that's right".I think his favourite words in the bible might be; "and" "the"

Be it the word of God, or be it a book of fables, the Bible has some interesting psychology concerning whether or not God was a believer or a non believer! 1) Did God change His mind?
2) Did He become an unbeliever in humanity?
3) When Hoah found favor in Gods eyes, was God showing special privilege to Noah or was Noah a believer in God, thus making God a believer in him? Is this true of humanity today??

The lesson we're obviously supposed to learn about the way Abraham acted when God told him to kill Isaac is that unthinking obedience is a virtue. The ethical problem never arises concerning the nature of Good: is something Good because God tells you to do it, or would God only tell you to do something Good? The believer has to assert the former, that God wants to make sure his followers will do anything, regardless of how reprehensible it is in an objective sense, as long as they feel it is what God wants.What Abraham should have done is refuse to kill Isaac, reasoning that any voice that told him to kill his son could not be coming from God. The notion that Good is independent of the whims of a supernatural being is the basis of ethics, and should not conflict with a realistic and rational belief in God. In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not God prevented Abraham from murdering Isaac (in fact He didn't: in the text, the stay of execution came from a "messenger" from God, not the Big Magic Guy Himself), because it had already been established that God expects His believers to do literally anything on His say-so.If God told you to sacrifice your child, I sincerely hope you would lack Abraham's faith.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I DaDed two childern out of wed-lock.

I would disagree. The Believer has to assert the latter because we believe that God is never going to tell us to do anything wrong.
This issue DOES get tricky when mentally ill parents kill their babies because they claim that God told them to do so. I suppose that the issue is this: Should anyone trust their inner voice or voices?
Healthy people label it as intutive. Healthy people also weigh the facts of everything else around them. Gen 22:6-8 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
Many ask why God tests Abraham when elsewhere in scripture it is said that God never tempts anyone to do evil. In context, however, Abraham was also teaching and testing Isaac. Both Father and son passed this test.

Like I said, this Bible story illustrates that God only wants people who will do His bidding, regardless of how heinous the task may be. It neither surprises nor impresses me that believers can twist themselves into all sorts of ethical pretzel-shapes in order to rationalize this appalling lesson.You only believe that God is never going to tell us to do anything wrong because you're already defining Good as "whatever God tells me to do." If you don't have an objective basis for deciding right or wrong aside from that, then you have no right to assert that only "mentally ill parents" would kill because God told them to. I agree totally when you finally come to your senses and say I suppose that the issue is this: Should anyone trust their inner voice or voices? Very good point! How would you know it's God talking to you if it seems the voice is telling you to do heinous things?regards,
Esteban Hambre

I said that I doubt I could kill the kid remember. That means, I would have to say "I will not" to God. But Abraham trusted God, otherwise - why would he say "God will provide the Lamb"?My point of this, is that Abraham had a great faith, as God didn't do anything heinous to Isaac.I hope my memory serves, but didn't Abraham argue with God concerning if there were any righteouss people in Sodom before God destroyed it? If anything Mr Hambre - we don't "have to" do what God says. Yet we trust and have faith that God knows best. We know this through what Christ taught. I've said it many times, if there were no Christ - I would probably not believe.Now Christ lived a life without sin.

mtw Because we might suppose that Isaac would have thought twice about sticking round if Abraham said "Well,boy,let's hear you bleat."