Free will vs Omniscience

He said (Mark 1:15), "... believe the gospel" - i.e. what He was saying. He didn't mean you'd see anything "unbelievable".

As usual, it boils down to what you think Jesus said as opposed to what He actually said. Believe whatever nonsense you can dream up and it retro-actively becomes what the Bible "really means".

You may have borrowed the dream but it's still your dream. The difference between you and me being that I quote the Bible to back up what I say.

I live in Saskatchewan so bad weather doesn't scare me. As for the company, I've said before that there are people supposedly in Hell that I would rather spend my time with than a lot of Christians. It isn't a question of Him "allowing" anything. He's the frickin' landlord.

That's what it all comes down to, isn't it? You couldn't care less about us spending eternity in hell because you can convince yourself that it's our "choice".

No, I'm just taking Phat's theology, and yours, to its logical conclusion. You and Phat believe I'm going to Hell and you're okay with that. I don't believe there is a Hell (at least not beyond the hell on earth that we can create) but if your theology was correct, I'd rather be against your God than for him. Right back at you: How do you know you won't come to your senses? My understanding of Hell is similar to yours. Remember, I came from where you are. I know the drill. It's just that you put Hell in the same category as France whereas I put it in the same category as Never Never Land.

I recommend that you try making sense instead. Same here. I'm still discarding the last vestiges of your so-called "gospel" after being shackled to it for forty years.

You pick a funny time to rely on evidence. And again, the "bizarre" things I say are backed up by scripture. The "orthodox" things that you say are not.

You're stepping on your own tail there. "We" don't all have the same beliefs, so there is no such thing as "our" beliefs to colour our collective conclusions.

That's why decisions on what "is" evidence are made collectively. One of the most common phrases in the English language is, "Did you see that?" We don't trust ourselves to determine unilaterally what is "evident".

Because the message is more important than the messenger.

Only the meaningless part that you have tacked on is meaningless. The message still has meaning.

If your grandfather abused you, it would not be reasonable to deny that he ever existed. It WOULD be reasonable to reject him.Your analogy is flawed. We all know that our grandfathers existed, whether they were good or bad. We do NOT know whether or not God exists. It is reasonable to deny his existence, given the total lack of evidence that he does exist. Also, given the way he is described by his devotees, it is reasonable to reject him.

No it isn't. You don't get to change the meaning of words.

Communication requires a sender, a receiver and a channel. The sender and receiver have to use the same meanings of words for communication to occur. If I say, "I ate corn flakes for breakfast," and you interpret that as, "I ate live kittens for breakfast," then we have failed to communicate.You can NOT use the word "evidence" for any damn thing you please. If it isn't evidence, don't call it evidence. It's that simple.What is it with you believers, anyway? Is your faith so weak that you have to prop it up by pretending you have evidence?