I think loving freely is a great thing. But "free love" as the hippies used it had nothing to do with love and everything to do with not valuing human sexuality. It was about freely cheating, freely getting and passing on STDs, freely hurting others (as tales are told years later, freely date-raping or drug-induced raping), and then passing blame to those who "judge" them (that is, who would say something akin to "I think you're ruining your life." -- often their parents).

But you're also right. Judging others (in the sense of deeming them unworthy -- not in the sense of determining right or wrong [we should all judge those things]) is a terrible thing to do. And when we do it, we're often judging ourselves in the process.

Sorry for all the parenthetic phrases and paragraphs. :)

On your first point, what concrete behavioral examples you might give?

And as to the Finnish fellow - "ask and thou shall be given" - money was what he needed to become more employable and this is what he received.

I think the solidarity of this eventual retired colleague and the generosity of someone who is most likely alike my grandmother, inspired by unassuming but deep Christianity - is this not possibly both Providence and Solidarity?

Ah, I see I have failed to convey my meaning accurately once again. Apologies.
I tried to use the phrase 'all that is required' to show that He is omnipotent already by virtue of all that He has done. If you disagree with that definition of omnipotent then we're merely arguing semantics.
I used the phrase 'If He has any limits beyond that, we don't know' -> meaning we can't comprehend Him in His entirety.
Equally, Jesus didn't say 'Nothing is impossible for God, except making a square circle'. Why did He not qualify this? Is it because a square circle is not, in fact, a 'thing' (just as a rock He can't lift isn't a thing, or something He can't know isn't a thing) or is it because He could make one? I don't know. But I can surmise that He was not talking to a bunch of lawyers who would want subsection c to clearly state that square circles are prohibited, irrespective of whether or not they were.

I'm quite happy to say that nothing is impossible for God. But if a thing can be done then it is not illogical by definition. So if God were to present us with the aforementioned square circle, it would show that square circles are not illogical. It would merely mean that our grasp on reality (and/or logic) was previously insufficient.

Then again, Tallima explains these things far better than I so perhaps I should just defer in future:
Thanks for that link :)

One group consisted of people who would eat their own flesh and then vomit it out onto the ground, at which time the vomit would fly back onto their bodies and turn back into flesh that they would eat again. The angel told Daniel these people were those who had eaten human flesh as an occult practice.

This seems pretty reasonable.

Indeed it is.

Oh please, this stuff was written for uneducated desert folk who didn't know much about anything. If they really meant what you and other "philosophers" add in afterwards, they would have made it clearer. This goes for all the atrocious stuff you simply declare as metaphores as well.
People do unbelievable stupid things even today, if you don't tell them exactly what not to do, that's why we have those silly warnings on all kinds of things. Could you really be sure that back then nobody would really pluck their eyes out or rip off body parts to get into heaven? And if not, then your god is not benevolent by not making its rules clearer.

You mean like how to make something alive what is without life? Declaring things nonsensical is another dangerous road you don't want to go down to.

But I agree, let's give Tallima a try...

Whould you guys stop with the rocks already? I never made the rock point and even refuted it myself. I even grant you that your redefined almost-omnipotence is plausible on its own. The problems arise when you combine it with eternal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, like the question Sinistar posed, which as usual, the christians will evade by making up new things about their religion.
And it is at this point, when they should realise that this is how all religions were made up! Some conmen got together and made up supernatural stuff to get people to do what they want. And since they are humans, they could not account for all the inconsitences in advance, lets call them bugs. And the beauty is, every religious person agrees with me on this about every other religion except their own! This means all religious people are my allies in the fight against religion!

Although...are there any omnitheists? People who believe in all gods that anyone ever made up...

That guy is basically right, but he leaves out quite a bit.

We have the early middle ages: In this time science saw a rapid decline for various reasons. There was a massive de-urbanization going on. The educated old Roman elite became extinct. The "high language" of the Romans was Greek, but the new "high language", as determined by the christian rulers, was Latin. The vast majority of scientific works was written in Greek. Latin works were limited to a few compendiums and "school level" books.
At the same time there was a considerable destruction of knowledge as the pagan temples and libraries were raized. Medical knowlegde declined rapidly, because the Romans wrote these books also in Greek, and the northern healers were persecuted, since they were closely linked to the pagan traditions.

There was not much science taking place. The education went to the monasteries. The monks would study Greek and begin to translate the Greek sources.

In the high middle ages this was basically going on - rediscovering of Greek texts and translations. Arabic texts were also translated. Since the availability of sources increased, the educational level rose.
In terms of science that means the scientists were discussing the old Greek and Roman knowledge. This led to some great thinkers like Roger Bacon. Many of them were inspired by Arabian scientists.
But there was almost no field research going on.

Research, with the aim to understand nature, to find causes and laws outside "it's God's doing" didn't become common until the late middle ages. From about 14th century on people began to look for natural causes of events.
Since they had quite some success they were threatening the church as sole interpretor of the world.

Then the black plague came, and everything suffered a huge setback.

When in the 15th century the scholars from the eastern empire retreated from the Ottomans to the western part they brought with them a whole batch of old greek knowledge. This befueled science a lot in theoretical and practical ways, at first in Italy, later in the northern countries, leading to Copernicus, Galileo and co.

The church felt cornered by all this (old and) new knowledge and the views on natural causes. They tried to suppress science, but could not succeed in the end. The famous scientist were pretty influencial figures in history, they were part of an elite. They were put under curfew order and such and often had to publicly revoke their theories, but they couldn't very well just burn them at the stake.

If we look at "grass roots" science and wisdom, like applied medical knowledge in rural environments it is a whole different matter. These people lived under contant threat. They never had a chance to become famous for finding a cure for a rare disease, since they couldn't go public anyways. Many of them could not read and write and passed on their knowledge in the traditional way: master to pupil.
These people also conducted research - not on "high mathematics" but what we would call medicine, anatomy/pathology (very dangerous since forbidden) and pharmacy. If you count them among the scientists, then, yes - there was prosecution of scientists. We just don't know their names since they had no chance of becoming famous.

I wouldn't count something as proof that requires belief first. Knowledge, yes - if someone wants proof that evolution happens, I expect him to know that there are species and sub-species and races and some of them are more similar and some not at all.
"I can prove it, but you have to believe me first." is nonsense. If you believe, you don't demand proof anymore. If I'm just not able to believe without proof I am screwed?

This raises (*g*) the question why there is no major religion springing up in that area with that guy as a messiah? Because some god took it upon them to rise this guy from the dead, he must be of major importance (heard of that Jesus guy, some 2000 years ago? Became quite popular...).

Well I can see is a webiste trying to sell me DVDs. And Reinhard Bonnke is pretty well known for "spectacular" events. A showman.
This risen Pastor Daniel does not even have a Wikipedia entry.

I already said in my (many and long - I'm sorry) posts that I don't discard the possibility of a ressurrection completely. In fact there are so many resurrection stories from all over the world at least some of them may contain a grain of truth. I just don't see "proof of God" in them.
Here, me. Well except for the omnipotent ones, they take up to much space in heaven.

Understandable. However when you make a claim you should support it with sources.
Besides, after little digging I can provide sources claiming otherwise like writings of Ambrose, Methodius of Olympus, Augustine of Hippo or Cyril of Alexandria.

And just like before, I would like to see a source for that.

What do you mean by "Catholic Canon"? Dante's Divine Comedy is a beautifully written (and thanks to Gustave Doré also beautifully illustrated) allegory and not a private revelation. It doesn't even have Imprimatur. Is it a Catholic book? Yes. So is Lord of the Rings.
Your assumption is incorrect. :)
I remember reading that some time ago at Strange Notions. He also made a good job dealing with the da Vinci Code.

Actually what Abraham said was, "Where you want this killin' done?" and God said down to Abraham, "Out on Highway 61."

I have a very serious question for the faithful, one which has dogged me for much of my life:

How do you perceive God?

By this I mean, how are you aware of God in your life? What sense informs you of God's existence and presence? I hear it talked about but I do not possess it. Consequently I feel half the time like I'm a sane man talking to a delusional, and the other half of the time I feel like a colourblind man trying to get someone to explain "blue" to me.

So how does one perceive God? And if one does not, can one?

Thank you for the correction, Remember my sources are vague since I watched this show on History Channel called Seven Deadly Sins which mentions Dante's work a lot and I thought I heard that his works was accepted in Catholicism.

I think most Christians sense God via the Holy Spirit.

For my experience, it's usually an inkling -- often coming out of nowhere. For instance, I might have a strong suspicion that someone is having a hard time, so I might talk to them (this feeling is akin to someone saying they're fine but you can tell they're not). Or I have this horrible emptiness and I need prayer or fasting (this feeling might be akin to leaving a lover for a few weeks and needing them back).

Other times, you get off-the-wall requests. They come on almost like visions, but you don't see anything in particular. It's ilke seeing with feelings and thoughts at the same time. Here's an example: I was sitting in my dorm room years and years ago and I had this sudden desire to stop doing homework, put my Bible in my back pack and go for a walk to the mall, about a mile and a half away. By the sense I had, I knew it was the Holy Spirit. But I'm a tester of all things always. So I'm always questioning.

I obeyed and took the walk all alone. I got to the mall and nothing happened. I assumed that either the sense wasn't the Holy Spirit or that the Holy Spirit just wanted me to take a walk. So I headed back to my dorm.

1/2 way back to my dorm, a homeless man came out of an alley and asked me, "Hey man. Do you have a Bible?"

"Er.... yes. I happen to have one here," I said. I opened up my bag and procured the only thing in it: a Bible.

"Good," he said. "I've wanted to read one so bad but haven't seen one in a long time."

So we spent maybe two or three hours reading the Bible, talking about our lives and how God's impacted us. It turns out that this guy once lived with a friend of mine, but they fell out of favor with one another(this man, John was his name, had fallen out of favor with everyone he'd ever come in contact with) and he was no longer permitted back at my friend's house (and for very good reasons). So we started praying for him regularly. Sometimes I still do. And it enflamed a passion for the homeless in me, which yielded several years of work to help others in similar situations as John.

God knew what John needed, knew what I needed, and directed me.

I find that the Holy Spirit is most easily heard when I spend more time reading my Bible and praying and fasting -- things I shamefully do far too little of.

Here's a little more ways how others experience God in ways that I don't:

A buddy of mine was at a pentecostal church and an 8-year-old girl from a completely unchurched family came to church and even dragger her parents with her. When the service was done, she asked to be baptized and during the baptism, she flipped out. She shook, lost consciousness and came to her wits just enough to ramble on and on.

Another friend showed me videos on YouTube of a missions trip where a man who had no contact with pentecostal churches at all -- didn't even know the existed -- and did the same (btw, Pentecostal churches are the tongue-talking fellas -- I'm more closely aligned with the Baptist sort, but I think that the Holy Spirit does do some interesting tongue-talking things).

I had a friend who prayed for a man's sight and on the spot his eyes went from white to normal and he could see.

So there are some of these big events that happen early on for some. Some see something major later. Some get inklings (most, I'd say, really) and some seem to hear little except on occassion.

Paul wrote that the Holy Spirit is like hearing God's thoughts (more or less and I don't feel like looking it up now). And that's as accurate as I can say it.

That's all stuff that only a Christian can experience. We talk about it all day long and most everyone's story is rather similar. But to non-believers, they think we're crazy. But after you hit 100% success rate for a decade or two of knowing things you shouldn't, you just figure that it must be accurate.

You're willing to lead actual dialogue. Thank you.

Anyway, I wanted to ask something in addition: Vast majority of Czech Republic is atheist, and likewise, majority of the world is not christian. Why isn't human mind predetermined to believe in christian God? If what you are saying is true (and allow me to be sceptic, after all you are a 'guy on the internet'), why isn't every human instinctivelly born with the need for this belief and with it in particular? And I don't take 'to have a free will' as an answer, human mind is influenced by so many factors that free will is an extremely limited concept regardless.

For instance, I have never in my life felt the need to believe in anything supernatural. I'm not closed to it per se and I do believe that there's a lot we can't explain yet - if I felt the need to believe in God, it would most likely be the christian one (as it's the most 'popular' religion around here). But I don't. And vast majority of people around me don't either.