"I clearly wrote that God eventually stopped Abraham from killing his son (and used the phrase "called it off" because that's how Abraham saw it), so why do you keep assuming that I thought he would let him do it? "

Do you know what call off means? Abraham knew there had to be some  catch because he clearly stated he thought God would bring him back to life.  I told you to read because I gave ACTUAL quotes.

"Abraham saw an apparent contradiction: (1) God said "kill" Isaac and (2) God said Isaac will have many descendants. Abe drew an obvious conclusion--"God will raise Isaac back to life." The OT passage itself focuses on Abraham's priority loyalty to YHWH--cf. Jesus' words in Matt 10.37: ""Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me". As is standard practice with God, when we 'give up' the good things in our lives to Him, we almost always get them back again with blessings."

"Hebrews 11.17-19

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 19 [Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead], and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.- Me before quoting and giving examples disproving your obvious screw up."

Learn to read. Like I said.

OMG LIEK a actual quote saying HE REASONED that his child would be bought back to life? Who should we believe a guy pretending to know what he was thinking or the actual text? 

"so why do you keep assuming that I thought he would let him do it? "

l

v

"How does anyone fail to see the sick part in this? We are supposed to put God above all laws and morals, and love him more than anything else. If he tells you to murder your wife and children you better be willing to do so, otherwise you don't deserve to have God's mercy. If you are not willing to blow up a school full of innocent children after God told you to do so, then that's to bad: You don't deserve him."

If you didn't believe God would actual make him kill his son then your conclusion would have been different but your taking the context out so you can somehow support actual killing kids.  Good job!

"And this is not about what Abraham did- or did not do, it is all about the principle. God didn't want to see Abraham kill his son, but he wanted Abraham to be willing to do so."

Umm,he wanted to see would he doubt God when it came down to God's own principles in which he showed to Abraham. It was all about testing Abraham doubt because of all the doubting he did eariler which I posted before.

Hebrews 11.17-19

By [faith] Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice.

Faith in biblical times was trust in something based on the evidence. He trusted God because based on what God's has always done for him.

Again read clearly.

"That is the sick part in all this."

You're thinking action instead of intent which I proved already. You're focused on the command and ignoring everything I said that lead to the actual intent.

"God obviously doesn't want to see you burn down a school full of innocent children, but he want you to be willing to do so if he ever told you to. "

Why would he want to based on what? You just say he would ignoring the whole reason behind Abraham and Issac. This is how you can tell you have no clue what your talking about. Do you even know why he only did with one person who was specifically Abraham? I want to respond to this because you seem to know nothing about why this event specifically happened and only getting pieces of it because of me. If you knew the answer the response you made would make sense why it's incoherent. You're obviously way over your head.

"He want you to worship him under any conditions and value him above anything else. In fact you brought it up yourself in your post:"

""Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me""

He is saying trust and him over anyone because obiviously he will not lie to you like he showed.

"As is standard practice with God, when we 'give up' the good things in our lives to Him, we almost always get them back again with blessings."-My previous translation of it  [Read]

"worship him under any conditions and value him above anything else" "

Love how you word that in a negative way so it seems like he would command to do something wrong which isn't what God does. For example, this is the only example of him telling someone to do this. Showing again that he isn't interested in doing anything like that. Which proves again you don't have a clue about what your talking about. The value part is an of course you should value God the most there isn't anything wrong with that unless your just complaining that you should value blood over the creator of everything is suppose to be perfect (omni). But if that is a problem then your argument is whining at best.

"He want us to be willing to give up our families in his favor."

The giving up families part should be explained better because I need to know the context of which your speaking. Do you mean if one goes against God that you go with God and not the family member views?  Do you mean to kill him them? That's not very specific.

"he also want us to be willing to commit horrendous crimes if he ever told us to."

Umm give example of a crime he wanted us to do? Because he didn't contradict himself when he changed the lamb with his son because the son was perfectly fine. Tell me a example of when he told someone else to do this and kill them? Oh yea you will not find it because it doesn't exist. Your trying pull something out of the orginal context so you make yourself look like he actual desires to want us to do this when it only happen for specific reason. I will into more deatils after you answer that one question I left you.

"That is what this thread is about; his unlimited need for worship and attention from all his creations."

First part debunked. Thread is dead?

Second part: You created everything and life and all you wanted was for your creation to follow your teachings and give worship. That seems like something that isn't to hard or much as millions of people do it everyday without stressing. Seem you just have problems here. 

"And yet, you keep saying that I have reading abilities of a first grader? Get over yourself."

Not debatable at this point.

"[Bullshit of epic proportions]"

Ah got to love that you probably ignore everything and went over your head. :)

You just did it again. You took precisely everything I said, twisted each part and made false conclusions.

How can you not understand that when I, for instance, used the school burning examples, God's purpose would in that case be to test us, and to make sure that we trust him, no matter what order he gives us? And that goes for every example that I mentioned, including being willing to leave your family.

Now, would you please discuss the actual topic? Most other users don't seem to have a problem with that, but I will give you a hand and ask you a concrete question: Is worshipping God necessary for people to go to heaven? Or is it possible for people to reject God while mainly being good (as in: follow the four points mentioned in the OP) throughout their lives and end up in heaven anyway? 

Remember; the answer is based on your personal beliefs, so there are no right or wrong answers. Several religious and non-religious posters have already answered that question and came up with different answers.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Christianity is the only logical religion, or that it is logical. I'm saying that I believe a requirement for a religion being true is that it must be logical. I am also saying that I am studying the Bible to see for myself if it is logical or not. I have not claimed that it is logical, though I have claimed that it is more logical than many would lead you to believe. I still have problems with it, however.

However, within the context of Christianity, it is perfectly logical to say that only people who believe in Christ will be saved, as that's what the Bible says. I don't see how you can say that is not logical, within the context of the religion. You can argue that the religion itself is wrong, and I have not claimed that it is or is not wrong.

Try seeing it this way: If Christ didn't do that which Christ did, then those who would believe in him would perish.  It explains why it is essential for those who believe.   This doesn't mean the means of being saved is believing, just that what Christ did is essential to those who would believe.  It is in keeping with what Paul wrote about if Christ didn't raise from the dead, Christians are the most deserving to be pittied.

You know, I went through bankruptcy due to a failed business.  I had a fairly large debt as the result.  When bankruptcy discharged the debt, no one came in and paid it.  You may want to think about exactly what forgiveness of debt is.  A debt forgiven is NEVER paid, it is discharged.  You may also want to look into the nature of covanents.  The shedding of blood is to establish a covanent.  It is NOT done to pay for anything that happened outside a covanent. 

Think on these things.  

I don't understand why it would say "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" if there is still only a chance of eternal life after belief.

I see it as an if then sort of statement. There isn't any restriction or caveat attached to that verse. It just says that whoever believes won't perish but will have eternal life. I don't see any other requirements for the eternal life, and that's why I interpreted it the way I did. And I had this confirmed by other Christians that I have spoken with... is this a divisive issue among Christians?

Let me try to explain what I mean when I say that the path to salvation is to accept the sacrifice of Jesus. What I mean by this is not just saying the words, "I accept Christ's sacrifice." To accept this sacrifice means that you have accepted that Jesus is the Son of God, you have accepted his message and his word as truth, and you strive to live perfectly according to the word of God. All fall short, but believers must only ask, and their sins will be forgiven. Does that sound more accurate to your understanding?

Perhaps I will understand your view better after I have gone through the entire Bible.

The text goes and explains why it was needed for those who believe don't perish.  It isn't there to explain HOW one ends up getting it.

What you said is better for describing it, but ends up getting real close to salvation by human effort, or sincerity of effort, rather than the works being a fruit of God in the life of a person active by the person trusting.  And also a matter of trust, the real faith that matters, is devoid there.  That is faith as mental affirming, rather than trust.  The problem by telling people they need to accept a message is the real matter of who accepts what is in the wrong area, and the isuse of real faith (trust) is missing also.  And this is the issue I have with it.  Maybe others but this is what is at the top of my mind now on the subject.

so the fact that every religion assumes their belief is rational doesn't strike as illogical ? they are implicetely denouncing each other... In fact, both christianity and islam have had revisions and scissions, the torah itself has been regulraly re-interpreted... isn't that a logical indicator of their fallaciousness ? How can they pretend to incarnate the word of god and evolve at the same time ? how can they pretend they contain eternal words of an eternal being when in fact they are the language of a specific region at a specific time ? when they contain flawed logic and oxymorons like jesus being both god and a man at the same time...

if jesus is a god he didn't suffer as a man

if jesus is a man god is as inaccesible to him as to us

 the whole book is full of these absurd dualities :

- god would be one and still "contain" father / son and holy spirit

they even missed the correct date for jesus' birth by 70 years...

it's like a very bad novel based on very few facts and a lot of goofyness from semi-cavemen

But why does it explicitly state that whoever believes won't perish but will have eternal life?

I meant it not to come across as salvation through human effort, but by accepting God's gift of salvation. I tried to explain just what I think that means, but I do believe that no matter how good you are in this life, you will never be good enough in God's eyes. This has been a common theme from every Christian I have personally asked, which I know is anecdotal evidence. If this is true (that no human effort can lead to salvation), then the only deciding factor left that I can think of is faith. That is why I made the claim that to be saved, you must accept Jesus' sacrifice. Doing so requires only that you accept the gift that God has offered to you.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if a religion is true, it should be logically consistent. I'm not saying that any are, and I'm not saying that any believers of any religion are or are not claiming their religion to be logically consistent. I am arguing that Christianity is not as logically inconsistent as I once thought (but I admit that I still struggle with some things), and thus far I have struggled in very few places with what seems to be a logical inconsistency within the Bible. Even if I were to find a bunch, I still plan on seeing this through to the end in the hopes of better understanding Christianity.

A revision of a holy text by humans could create a logical inconsistency. I have chosen to use many translations of the Bible, and when faced with a contradiction, to attempt to stick as close as possible to the oldest translation. I also have an excellent resource in my sister, who knows Hebrew. I believe that this will be the closest I can come to the word as it was originally created (whether by man or by God). And I do believe that a God who created everything would be powerful enough to create and protect his word, so if this search turns up contradictions, then that would likely disprove Christianity in my mind.

God created man in his own image. Jesus being both God and man is not a contradiction within the context of Christianity. In his human form, he certainly was capable of doing some things that we cannot; you can think of Jesus as a physical incarnation of God (the son).

The problem with applying logic to God himself is that I don't believe we can. I don't think that we can comprehend a being capable of creating an entire universe, however he did it. We are to him as animals are to us, in the sense that an animal can't fully comprehend us. That does not stop one from applying logic to God's word and I do believe that a God who created everything would make his word logically consistent with the world he created, otherwise it would not require faith to believe but a complete rejection of everyday observations.

You and I (and everyone else) will never comprehend the Trinity in this life. It is beyond us to fully understand God, and that is why religion ultimately requires faith, and why logic can only point you in a direction. It can't take you the rest of the way. That's why I want to focus on the word of God, which I do believe should be logically consistent if true.

I dont see anyone's opinions changing due to this debate, so people you should save your energy for something else.