While your points are well made, I don't think John Green thinks that the US is not to blame. No more nor less than the Gulf states, who are just if not more wealthy than all the ME put together yet have done nothing, with the problem right at their doorstep.

Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! My darling!
Light goes the weather-wind and the feathered starling.
Down along under Hill, shining in the sunlight,
Waiting on the doorstep for the cold starlight,
There my pretty lady is, River-woman's daughter,
Slender as the willow-wand, clearer than the water.
Old Tom Bombadil water-lilies bringing
Comes hopping home again. Can you hear him singing?
Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! and merry-o!
Goldberry, Goldberry, merry yellow berry-o!
Poor old Willow-man, you tuck your roots away!
Tom's in a hurry now. Evening will follow day.
Tom's going home again water-lilies bringing.
Hey! Come derry dol! Can you hear me singing?

I could make good use of a force blasting door mat like that, door to door salesmen, bill collectors, Jehovah's Witnesses, the paperboy who never reaches the doorstep. Oh wait, he never reaches the doorstep, I'd like to order an automated deathray too.

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

You reflect a lot of peoples opinions with this. Those who are terrified of terrorist attacks and let themselves get whipped up into a panic state anytime they push the propaganda button.

Oh those aren't happy natives those are blood thirsty psychos redskins we have to destroy to feel safe.

Those aren't nice Chinese laundrymen they're trying to kill us, we need to launch a chemical attack against mainland China (true story).

Those aren't black slaves we're keeping under our boots, they want to rape your daughters we can't give them freedom!

Those aren't peaceful villagers they're Red Communist bastards that are coming for us like a HOARD!

And so on and so on and so on. This country is terrified of everything, and usually the boogie man it makes up is the very people or country that we have under our boot. If we take our boot away for even a second they'll destroy us and everything we hold dear. There were people arming themselves and wearing Camo during the FIRST Gulf War because they were terrified of Saddam Hussein showing up on our doorsteps.

This culture of fear is what they use to justify everything, it's all about Security. Guess what, it doesn't have anything to do with security, because they know very well what they can do to make us more secure, even more than our magical country already is. They're not doing it, they have never done it...they're not protecting us, they only protect themselves FROM US.

This isn't an attack or anything you bring up a very good point which tons of people do during these debates. I'm getting really tired of the most protected society in the world not responding to those who actually pose a threat to not just our survival, but humanities as a whole.

@blankfist

i would be totally on board with a massive re-structuring of the corporate charter.

might i suggest we return the clause "for the good of the people"?
and force responsibility financial and otherwise when a corporation causes damage to either the enviroment or society at large.

adam smith said"only with absolute liberty can a free market truly exist".
we do not have absolute liberty nor a free market.
we have a protectionist government which serves the needs of the corporate elite.
and those needs simply translate to :less competition...for them.

which is the point i think you were trying to make and on that note i agree.
but i think the leviathan is a far larger beast and will not be dismissed so easily.

power begets power and seeks only to retain its power.

we have to get money out of politics.
money should never equal free speech,yet sadly that is where we find ourselves to day.

corporations spend billions towards influencing legislation favorable to their bottom line.i read somewhere that for every dollar spent they receive 22,000 from the beneficial legislation.

so not only is out government bought and paid for...they are more trashy than the 10 dollar crack whore.

the only thing that has ever worked to change things...ever.
is the people.
social movements.
we need to starve the beast.

in my opinion the very first step to even BEGIN to make that move forward is we need to fix our fourth estate,or at the very least ridicule and dismiss the fucking circus that we know as corporate media news.
its not news.
its propaganda.

i really think that most people would agree to an extent on what your saying blankie but the reality does not reflect the dream and may be why some people dismiss the notion as silly.

@JiggaJonson brought up a good point and is actually a great way to start to starve the beast.
civil disobedience in the form of refusal to participate in the system.
dont file your taxes.
dont buy car insurance or register your vehicle.
cut up your credit cards and dont pay them.
buy local,from family owned establishments (so your money stays local).

but in my experience most americans do not like being uncomfortable nor afraid and doing these things will bring both to your doorstep.

i always said the american revolution will commence the moment they take away their cable tv.

It's Exxon's new outreach program. "Free Gas Delivered to Your Doorstep!"

This is the fault of the murderer. It would be hard to kill someone while they are driving away if you don't have a gun. But to always assume the worst of others to the degree that you kill an innocent young man who was lost is unforgivable. If a group of young people with knives in their hands showed up on my doorstep I still wouldn't assume anything dangerous was happening. That old man must spend his whole life in Hell. So afraid inside a prison of his own making. How you get to be grown up and still be so ignorant of basic facts and reasoning is a mystery to me.

So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

The topic of the video is what academics think about God. And when they're talking about God, they are really talking about the Christian God, so it is relevant to the conversation.

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.

I don't have any problem with science. I think the exploration of the creation reveals the glory of the Creator, which is something I highly esteem. I only take issue with the hubris of men who exalt mans position in the Universe over God. It's kins of like that joke..

"God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to
Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally
figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other
words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and
form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and
starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.""

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

What's different in the world? 30 thousand people starving to death every day in a world that has a 70 trillion dollar GDP. The inequity in the world today is greater than at any other time. Most people aren't aware, and don't really care about anything which is happening outside their limited sphere of interest. There is no actual difference between the man of yesterday and the man of today. If anything, he is even more corrupt than ever.

As far as infant morality rates, God didn't create the world like this. It became this way because of sin.

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

It doesn't really matter if you hate religion, it's whether you love Jesus that is important. Did you?

Newton gave the credit to God, and said all of his inspiration came from Him. The value of his faith in God was very tangible to him, and the fruit it bore benefited all humankind.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions.

What scientific inquiry will answer them?

There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The vast majority of Christians have agreement on all of the core teachings of the bible, going back to the early church.

I don't expect you to agree with me that they are important; you of course have your own ideas about what is important. However, God did put you here for a reason, and you can only find that reason out from Him. If there is no God, there is no purpose, truth or meaning for anything. Did you catch this video?:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-about-Atheism

I notice that you put the word truth in quotation marks. Do you know what truth is? Without truth, you are living in a world of uncertainty. You are staring down a hall of mirrors, not knowing which is the true reflection.

There are only two routes to know what truth is. One is that you're omnipotent. Two, is that you are given revelation of the truth by an omnipotent being. I am claiming the second option; that's the only way I know what the truth is. What is your route to the truth?

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

These are rational beliefs until you are given revelation by God, and then you throw these theories out the window and start over. That's where I was at before I was saved, because I didn't grow up in a Christian home like you did. I grew up in a secular home without religion, and I thought along these same lines, and I was equally skeptical about all supernatural claims. It's only because God had mercy on me and showed me He is there that I know that He is.

The way it works is, God gives you enough information/revelation to know that He is, and then He puts the onus on you to seek Him out. You probably believe you are rejecting God for intellectual reasons, but you're really not when it comes down to it. You are rejecting God because of the sin in your life, because sin is what separates us from God. Sin corrupts your intellect and twists your logic just enough to keep you from seeing reality. If you honestly want to know the truth, and are willing to give up everything in your life to have it, then you will find it:

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the truth. Those who are seeking the truth end up on his doorstep. The way you know God is true is when God reveals Himself to you through personal revelation. Would you give up everything in your life to know the truth?

A Christian is someone who has surrendered their life to Christ. It sounds like you, like many others I've spoken to, grew up in a Christian home and were never taught how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You had your parents faith and didn't really understand why you believed. When you encountered the skepticism of the world, you found you couldn't justify your belief to yourself and fell away. Does that sound about right?

You don't become a Christian through osmosis from your parents; you need to be born again. Without the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, you won't have any reason to believe. You have nothing to stand on if your entire experience of Christianity is is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. Why would you do any of it if you didn't experience the tangible presence of God? To know God is to know Him personally, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

Now this is interesting, what you're saying here, when you mention "incorruptible knowledge". I'd like to explore this, but before we do, could you answer two simple questions?:

Tell me one thing you know for certain, and how you know it.

Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible?

I did read what you have to say @mentality, and I will answer it.

I'll say first of all that you're starting off with the wrong presuppositions about me. I didn't grow up Christian, I grew up in a secular home without any religion. I was an for agnostic for most of my life and very skeptical of the Christian religion; it was about the last thing that I thought might be true. The reason I became a Christian is because God gave me personal revelation of His existence. On that basis, it would be irrational for me not to be a Christian, based on the evidence I have received.

I can really relate to what you're saying. I used to feel much the same way, and you're absolutely right; if Jesus isn't alive then everything you said is basically true. In that case I am just a victim of my own confirmation bias. I also can't tell you why Jesus didn't come into your life at that time. Perhaps it just wasn't the right time and there were more things He wanted you to learn about and do in the world before He opened your eyes. I didn't receive any revelation for most of my adult life so there is definitely a timing issue involved. Which is to say that I know that He heard your prayer, but God operates on His own schedule. You're also right about this:

"The truth will reveal itself to you, if you sincerely want to know."

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. If you are looking for the truth you will end up on His doorstep.

So, I will be praying for you. I know the Lord heard your prayer, so open your heart again to the idea because if you meant it, it is a prayer He intends to answer. I believe that is why we're talking about this now. Jesus said this:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

If you hear His voice, open the door, and He will come in to your life. God bless.

Ecclesiastes 1:14 I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.

This world is temporal; it is passing away. These monuments of human achievement we have constructed to declare our own glory are all sandcastles awaiting high tide. They are grains of sand being washed into the cosmic sea. We will leave this world the same way we entered it; at the complete mercy of forces beyond our control or understanding. This American dream is a shadow play; there is nothing from this world that can completely satisfy us:

Ecclesiastes 3:11

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

We know there is much more to this life than the gratification we can squeeze out of this moment. There is a perpetual, lingering dissatisfaction, when your hope is resting on shifting sands. Uncertainty is lurking at the doorstep, trying to sell us a lifetime subscription. A guest pass on a prison ship made of mind and sinew. We hunger for we don't see; a sense of permanence. A place called home. Something to fill the gap between heart and mind. We thirst for an eternal wellspring, welling up into life everlasting. A joy inexpressible and full of glory. We know there is more because He set it in our hearts to seek after Him. We know all of the ways of this world lead to death, but when put away uncertainty and seek after Him with all of our hearts, we will the find the bridge to eternity; we will find our Savior.

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Id rather pay for a unified europe than to have germany at my doorstep again..

Similarly, we can instantiate in enough physical rules to get the "chance" universe you describe going, and its rules could get it to the current state either determinalistically or with some element of randomness. I guess I understand how you're using "chance" here... but I don't know that it's terribly useful. Why should "what humans can predict" be of any relevance philosophically? And if we're using it that way, couldn't we similarly describe God's actions as chance? I mean, surely humans (or angels) can't predict everything he's going to do. Chance seems like a pejorative when applied to God.. and to me it seems like a pejorative when applied to the operations of the universe (except where, again, that operation is actually random).

However, again, I don't think this difference is terribly important. I think I understand what you're getting at, I just see things very differently.

The difference between chance and design is the most important distinction there is. If you don't like the word chance, I will use the word "unplanned", or "mindless". An unplanned Universe has no actual purpose; it is just happenstance. Meaning, your life is just a product of mindless processes, and concepts like morality, justice, and truth have no essential meaning. It means you are just some blip on a grid and there is no rhyme or reason to anything. It also means you will never find out what happened or why it happened because no one knows what is going on or ever will. This will *always* lead you to nihilism.

A designed Universe, on the other hand, does have a purpose. A purposeful Universe means that life was created for a reason. It means that there is a truth, a truth that only the Creator knows. Which means that all lines of inquiry will lead to the Creators doorstep, and that trying to understand the Universe without the Creator is completely futile. It is like looking at a painting with three marks on it..you could endlessly speculate on what the painter was thinking when he painted it. However, no matter how clever you were, you don't have enough information to be sure about anything. To refuse to seek the Creator would be to stare at that painting your whole life trying to figure it out when you have the painters business card with his phone number on it in your pocket.

I don't think you're phrasing this in a terribly fair way. Yes, many people assume there's a natural explanation for abiogenesis. This is partly because having another explanation introduces arbitrariness into the system. Say I'm a geologist and I discover Devil's Tower. It's really weird, but my inclination from the very start is that it was formed by similar processes to ones that have explained weird things in the past. Even if I can't postulate even a guess as to why it has those weird columns, I'm not crazy to guess that eventually we'll figure out an explanation that doesn't involve, say, new physical laws or aliens. (And it's certainly not helpful to say "maybe it was made in the flood").

The whole thing is arbitrary to begin with. Naturalistic explanations are assumed apriori, and then the evidence is interpreted through the conclusion. That isn't how science works. You come to the conclusion because of the evidence, not the other way around. I would also note that you would never accept this kind of reasoning from a creationist. Neither does a mountain of circumstantial evidence prove anything.

Abiogenesis is a bigger problem and it's also one that's "lost to time" a bit. It almost certainly requires a mechanism we have yet to identify (or a mechanism someone has guessed at, but hasn't provided good details or evidence for). But, like Devil's Tower, there's no reason to expect that mechanism won't be identified - or that it will require significant changes to our understanding of the rest of science. Again, there's plausible ideas already floating around, and I think we'll probably recreate the process (though likely not with the same actual process) within the next 30 years or so.

Anything sounds plausible, apparently, when you have billions of years to play with. As the earlier quote said, time itself performs the miracles for you. How do you know that the mechanism hasn't already been identified but you have rejected it?

http://creation.com/devils-tower-explained

No... that, I think, is probably our strongest point of disagreement. I'm very much OK with "I don't know", and literally everything I believe has a bit of "I don't know" attached (kind of similar to how everything you believe in has a bit of God attached).

I'm not worshipping ignorance or something - knowing IS better than not knowing. But I'm also not scared of not knowing things - and I'm certainly not just going to pick something and believe in it because I don't like having some of my answer pages blank.

For you, is Scientology better than "I don't know"?

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't know isn't a theory. What most atheists mean when they say "I don't know" is "I know it isn't the Christian God, but otherwise I don't know". The next thing they say is, you believe in God because you're afraid. That I "chose" God because I am scared of death, or because the Universe is too big and scary for my mind to handle the uncertainty of not knowing.

I have to say that this idea of a bunch of hokey. The Christians I know believe in God because they have a personal relationship with Him. It has nothing to do with making a choice..God chose us. He would chose you too, if you were open to Him.

Neither was I afraid of death when I was an agnostic, and I wasn't afraid of saying I don't know (that's why I was an agnostic, because I didn't know). I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me, and that is the only reason. If He hadn't, I would still be an agnostic.

It is credible to believe that the Universe was designed and created by God. We can see that whomever made the Universe is unimaginably powerful, intelligent, exists outside of space and time, etc. Scientology isn't credible and explains nothing. God can explain everything.

Also, thanks for using the big boy version of the Bible. I quite like the Bible artistically, but I can't stand some of the new translations (despite whatever benefits some parts may have in terms of clarity).

Most of the new translations butcher the scriptures. They remove entire verses, words, water down meanings, or just flat out mislead. I can't stand them either. The KJV is the best word for word translation that we have, and although the language is archaic, it is comprehensible with a little research.

>> ^jmzero

If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love. If the wonderful Creator of this Universe, the one who gave you life, who knows your entire life from start to finish, your most intimate thoughts and deeds, better than you do in fact, came to your door, you think you would have the superficial reaction that you have described? You think, with all you have done in life laid bare before Him, you would engage in some cynical dialogue with Him? If you're going to engage in a hypothetical then how about some realism? It's also irrational to say you wouldn't serve God if He revealed Himself to you.

What God wants for you is to repent of your sins, which means turn away from them, and believe in His Son. Through that comes love and forgiveness, as well as eternal life. God loves you anyway, but He wants you to know Him personally. You say, you have no idea why anyone would want to worship God, yet you have seen the glory of the Heavens He has created; if some being did create them, did in fact design this entire Universe, He certainly would be worthy of praise. Praise is something that comes natural to human beings, and we give it all the time for even trivial things. Why you wouldn't be grateful for what God has done and does do for you each and every day is the mystery. We are all built to worship, and it comes out in a myriad of ways if not directed towards our Creator. People worship money, power, celebrity, drugs, technology, themselves, etc. You have alters in your life that you make sacrifices to. What God wants is to adopt you into His family, as a son. God has a plentitude of being. God has no *need* of our worship. He has ordained it not just because He deserves it, but because worship is a natural expression of the joy, love, and gratitude we feel towards God, for the great things He has done and continues to do in our lives.

>> ^Sagemind:

Absolutely not, why would a person do that?
First off, He isn't real so your question makes no sense to a sane person.
Second, If some entity showed up on our doorstep and fulfilled the definition of perfect, I'd congratulate him on his/her perfectness. (what a sad life that would be).Then I would berate said person for bragging and rubbing it in everyone's face. Then I would continue on with my life.
Why would I change who I am or give anything of myself to he who may already have it all (as is claimed).
I will forever wonder at the concept of worship. Why some people need to lay themselves at someone else's feet like undeserving dogs is beyond me.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Let me ask you this question. If God is undeniably perfect as I claim, would you repent from your sins and turn your life over to Him?

Absolutely not, why would a person do that?
First off, He isn't real so your question makes no sense to a sane person.
Second, If some entity showed up on our doorstep and fulfilled the definition of perfect, I'd congratulate him on his/her perfectness. (what a sad life that would be).Then I would berate said person for bragging and rubbing it in everyone's face. Then I would continue on with my life.
Why would I change who I am or give anything of myself to he who may already have it all (as is claimed).

I will forever wonder at the concept of worship. Why some people need to lay themselves at someone else's feet like undeserving dogs is beyond me.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Let me ask you this question. If God is undeniably perfect as I claim, would you repent from your sins and turn your life over to Him?