catman

Yeah--but would it be funny if they just made things up out of thin air. Fact is, they interpret the bible almost identically as I do.

Demigawd

<strong>You do realise Landover Baptist is a parody site?</strong>

My one true regret in life is my first 18 years was exclusive amidst people who inspire Landoverbaptist.com.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Demigawd ]</p>

ax

losing my religion.com
hey!! did you ask for permission to use all that????!!!

Waning Moon Conrad

I think Maimonides also states that God cannot look upon or be in the presence of sin.

Seeing as it is God who defines sin, it should be possible for God to exclude the non-belief in Christ-as-saviour from the definition of sin, thereby making it possible for multitudes more to enjoy heaven.

If it is not possible for God to exclude the
non-belief in Christ-as-saviour from the definition of sin, then God is not omnipotent because something other than God has imposed restrictions upon his capacity to define sin.

If it is possible for God to exclude the non-belief in Christ-as-saviour from the definition of sin and he chooses not to then he's an arsehole because he gratuitously chooses to define sin in such a way as to maximise the payload of suffering on judgment day.

If God arbitrarily chooses to expand the definition of sin to include the non-belief in Christ-as-saviour then what is it that prevents him from being in the presence of non-Christians other than his own tendency to react hysterically to his own decision?

Furthermore, if he can't be in the presence of sinl, then is he omnipresent?

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>