The Christian Faith Made Simple

In the words of that famous Christian hymn: Only Believe. Only Believe. All things are possible. Only Believe!

God the Father; God the son; God the Holy Spirit: These three in One. Very God of Very God being of one substance (Homoousios), begotten not made, True God from True God. This very same True God was born by the creature He created (Theotokos: God Bearer or when the Creator created the creature who, in turn, created the Creator in sinful flesh yet without sin): Mary who herself was impregnated by her own Father God so He could be born into the very fallen world of sin the Creator so detested and cursed the created creatures with. In so doing, He became flesh and dwelt among us, but to correct the very Fallen State the Creator cursed the creatures with, the Creator had Himself killed so He as Very God of Very God could shed His own sinless blood for Himself (Creator-Creature atoning to Creator) in order that He could finally accept the world the Creator created in His perfect mind which the Creator had fully planed with fore-knowledge before the foundations of the earth (Gospel of John Chapter 1). The Creator is now seated at the right hand of Himself while making inter-secession to Himself for the fallen creatures of which he had foreknowledge (Supralapsarianism) of before He created the foundations of the cosmos. He, Himself, will now come again to receive this, His fallen creation, unto Himself by re-creating a New Heaven and a New Earth in which the redeemed fallen creatures will also rule with the Creator in a New Jerusalem filled with the very items (Gold and Emeralds: Revelation 21) which produce the greed and lust of the fallen state of the creature the Creator condemned in the old eternal Covernant now replaced with the new eternal Covernant.

Now dear Christian, just which part of your salvation do you not understand? (Remember, your very soul hangs in the balance between orthodoxy and heresy or between eternal damnation and eternal salvation.)

May God have mercy on your mental state!

25 comments:

John W. Loftus said...

LOL

Good job. This is quite literally bizzarro!

elbogz said...

Or in the words from Russell's Teapot, “You see, it is necessary for me to sacrifice myself, to myself in order to change the rule, that I myself created “

Bluemongoose said...

So if God is not human, not bound by human limitations and is constructed of three parts (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), why couldn't He send part of that Trinity down to the earth He created? Why is it such a stretch that someone not bound by the natural laws of this earth has the ability to supercede those laws?

Teleprompter said...

"Why is it such a stretch that someone not bound by the natural laws of this earth has the ability to supercede those laws?"

It's not so much that I think this is a stretch, but that I think it is sort of an absurd length to go to in the first place.

When Jesus preached, he is said to have forgiven the repentant. Why couldn't God forgive before that? Why adhere to the tribal rules of blood sacrifice?

Besides, is it really free will to create beings who have such a high propensity to 'sin' that it is virtually impossible for them not to? Is that really free? Perhaps the God who had created such beings would've been more understanding of their limitations?

Bluemongoose said...

Teleprompter:

You're implying the tough wages of sin are God's doing. If we look at this particular argument/debate as a chess game, then several moves ahead, you're likely to say that God uses ultimate judgment as a scare tactic just because He is a despot, bent on total domination and will use underhanded ways to get what He wants.

But what if I changed the angle we looked at this from: What if the wages of sin upset God so much that He decided to sacrifice Himself and pay the ultimate penalty in your place b/c He loved you -- even when you didn't love Him? So why have the superficial blood offerings before Christ? Obedience test. But what blood offering could cover the sins from the beginning of entity we know as time to its end? How about the one who calls Himself the Alpha and the Omega, who operates outside of time?

High propensity to sin. Seems very telling that an all-powerful God w/the ability to make us into mindless automations would give us free will even though He knew what our capabilities were when weilding that hammer.

Scott said...

Bluemongoose,

That's a lot of "if"s. Should we assert that a being who didn't have to follow any rules did exist, I could create dozens of grandiose supernatural scenarios that would make just as much "sense"

For example, one explanation for what we currently observe could be an eternal, all powerful, all good God who is locked in battle with his eternal, all powerful, but evil twin brother.

Surely, this would at least be on par with the Christian explanation as why there is both good and evil in the world, why bad things happen to some, but not others, etc.

But, unlike Christianity, such an explanation would be far simpler, make fewer assumptions and appear to contain significantly fewer contradictions.

Gone is the problem of why God must appease himself with his own death, to satisfy one of his own rules. We no longer need the Trinity to explain how Jesus could be both a man and God. And it also solves the problem of why an omnipotent God, who cannot stand sin, has yet to defeat evil and end this age.

Yet, despite being what seems to be a more plausible (among competing supernatural theologies) explanation of what we observe, I'm guessing it's a explanation that you do reject outright.

Why do you think that might be the case? And on what basis?

Harry McCall said...

The subjective term “sin” is a cultic term linked subjectly to some religion. As such, a hardcore punishment under the Mosaic Law is totally forgiven under Jesus.

Likewise, the whole concept of God is always in a state of change in the Bible.

For example: The prophet Jeremiah plainly states that “burning their sons and daughters in fire” is something God “never commanded, which NEVER CAME TO IS MIND,”(Jeremiah 19:5 & 32:35). If this fact is taken as an eternal truth, than just how do we explain the aqedah or the binding of Isaac and God’s demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22?!

Clearly, if Jesus had showed up at one of the major church councils which created Christian orthodoxy, he would have been either banished or killed as a heretic.

It’s truly funny how “sin”, just like religious dogmas, seems to always be in a state of change. But then when critical thinking is used, we just might see the human touch in the creation of the Bible and its god.

Alan said...

Harry McCall wrote: Homoousios…blah, blah, blah, Theotokos…blah, blah, blah, Supralapsarianism…blah, blah, blah. Now dear Christian, just which part of your salvation do you not understand?

I don’t understand the part where you changed 100 words from the original text, spoke in a foreign language, then pulled a rabbit out of your hat.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Harry McCall said...

Alan, just what part of my post is not orthodox Christian dogma? Reworded yes, but orthodox none the less.

Oh, you must be a Bible Baptist who can trace his religious history all the way back past Jesus to straight to John the Baptist or to some Baptist Christian sect established before even Jesus called his first apostle.

As to your attempt to use Colossians 2:8, your proof text is out of context as the author here is attacking Judaizers (Col. 2:11; 13 - 17).

Sorry, but educate yourself on the letter’s context before you shoot yourself in the foot again.

Alan said...

Harry McCall Curriculum Vitae
Altar Acolyte
Lay Reader & V.P. of Luther League
Rebaptized as a Baptist
Licensed preacher, S.C. Baptist Convention
Wrote HS senior prayer (pub. in '71 Seneca High Year Book)
Attended Bob Jones University
Voted "Assistance Prayer Captain" (Dorm Spiritual Leader)
BA in Bible @ Southern Wesleyan University
Chaplain @ Baptist Student Union
Pres. of university's student Society of Biblical Literature
Attended Columbia Theological Seminary, Atlanta, Ga
Pres. of relig. & phil. discussion group "The Lion's Den"
Pres. South Carolina Academy of Religion
I'm currently a Relative Atheist (who would rather now be honest than religious)

I’m glad to see that you’ve finally come clean. To have spent all of those years seeking titles & recognition must have left you pretty dry when you realized your life’s work culminated in plaques and pats on the back. How did you manage to travel that far without reading Matthew 23:5-7?

”But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.”

Personally for me, I prefer to under-advertise myself to others then receive satisfaction when I exceed their expectations. I don’t even display my graduation diplomas. In your case, you’ve somehow managed to market yourself as an all-star but your legs gave out on the last lap. To avoid degrading yourself further you should avoid telling those seated in the bleachers that your “coach” was at fault or the race was “not certified”. Everybody hates a sore loser who makes excuses.

Harry McCall wrote: My question to all Bible believers is: "If, as Christian Tradition claims, God is all good; where did harmful germs, viruses and parasites come from?"

I’ve heard of people getting divorced after one spouse became suspicious of the other’s lack of faithfulness. They became psychotic and paranoid and were triggered by insignificant events such as hearing, “Honey, I’m going to the corner store to get a Coke.” It’s hard to imagine a person calling it quits because of a microscopic germ but I had a college friend who became excessive compulsive. Anything touched in his apartment by guests required him to clean it with a cloth that he had nearby at all times. Did God create harmful germs and viruses?

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

“Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth.” – Blaise Pascal

Preachers who candy-coat their messages do people disservice. I have a niece who joined the Army after a recruiter told her that she would receive special gentle treatment during boot camp if during stressful times she hung a sign about her neck that read, “Don’t yell at me. I’m having a bad day.” After joining and discovering that no such signs were issued, she quit after just a few weeks. Harry, the point in all of this is you were either lied to or you lied to yourself. Having been there I can attest that recovery is possible. Don’t blame Christ.

P.S. Change the spelling on your Curriculum Vitae “Altar Accolite” to “Altar Acolyte”

Bluemongoose said...

Hi, Scott!

First, we need to establish why I use a lot of ifs in my posts. 1) Phrasing my comments in that fashion makes them more palatable to the reader as opposed to always using declarative statements that when used ad nauseum can put those I debate with on the defensive. 2) It also helps readers get introspective, as it makes them refocus what they believe on a particular issue -- even for a brief period.

But now that that's been illuminated for you, it kind of steals the thunder of your "grandiose" suggestion.

So why do you believe God has an evil twin? Allow me to back up a little bit: Your statement here implies God is the original of which evil is the counterfeit. Why do you infer this?

Bluemongoose said...

Howdy, Harry McCall! You bring up very important subjects.

You say the term "sin" is subjective. This implies you favor relativism. But if you trully are a student of this school of thought, then aren't all of your statements subjective too? Or are you making a one-ended stick argument, meaning, the only thing that's not subjective/relative is subjectivism/relativism?

Jeremiah v. Isaac. Notice how God didn't let Isaac go through with the sacrifice. It ended up being an obedience test. Atheists like to purposefully tell the first part of the story and leave out the last part, depending greatly on the audience's lack of research about the subject for kudos.

Harry McCall said...

Alan: “I’m glad to see that you’ve finally come clean. To have spent all of those years seeking titles & recognition must have left you pretty dry when you realized your life’s work culminated in plaques and pats on the back. How did you manage to travel that far without reading Matthew 23:5-7?

Re: Alan, I was duped by Christianity just as a child can be tricked by a pedophile and mentally damaged for life. It is ONLY because of vested people like yourself that Christianity and the Bible receive forgiveness from their lying ways, but then, sin is only one sided; sorry.

Say, Alan, since Christianity is true, just why don’t Lutherans, Wesleyans and Baptist regularly exchange pulpits?

Oh, I understand, true Christianity has been some how corrupted; but, for God sake, don’t blame the Bible! If we can’t touch and hold a perfect God here and now, lets try for a perfect Bible.

Face it Allan, without believers, God ceases. Oh, you might say: “Not for me!”, but that's simply purely subjective and wishful thinking.

Alan: “In your case, you’ve somehow managed to market yourself as an all-star but your legs gave out on the last lap. To avoid degrading yourself further you should avoid telling those seated in the bleachers that your “coach” was at fault or the race was “not certified”. Everybody hates a sore loser who makes excuses.


Re: As to Matt. 23: 5-7, just why is the D.Min. degree more popular now than the M.Div. degrees in many seminaries?

Why is Luther Rice Correspondence Seminary, with their phony doctorates in Fla., oh soooo popular with Baptist pastors who did not never get a regular college degree?

And, since you know so much, why do most ALL large churches require a doctorate degree (phony or real)?

Now where is Matt. 23: 5-7? It looks like the simple faith in Jesus is not valid any more.

Plus Alan, just why, when a Baptist church has a revival, do they call in a big name major evangelist and pay him well? Just might the want an entertainer more than a spiritual man?

On the other hand, if who the hell ever wrote Matthew 27:9 had an education, just maybe he or she would not have misquoted Zechariah 11: 12-13 and made the error in claiming that it came from Jeremiah.

But since your reality is blinded by your religious dogmas - that the Bible is totally free of any error - you will claim a major Greek N.T. textual scholar like Bruce Metzger is simply wrong (A Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament, 2nd. ed. p.55)!

Finally, thanks for the proof read on my blog profile. It’s too bad you don’t read the Bible with the same objectivity; but then, that's part of your sinful nature.

Harry

Harry McCall said...

Bluemongoose, Everything. Let me repeat: Everything is subjective. Everything from mathematical equations to the theology of God in the Bible; to the Canon of the Bible itself.

The only thing not relative is the out dated past.

So the 6GH8 vacuum tube is still set in stone as an absolute just as the 2N3904 PNP transistor function is set in absolute stone which replaced it; just as the N Channel MOSFET which replace the bipolar transistor.

Bluemongoose, do you study law? Do you study morality? What about medicine? If relativism is not the LIVING part of the tree of life growing over the dead truck of absolutes, then just why is Continuing Education a major part of any job or profession?

As to Jeremiah v. Isaac: Your relativism to explain away Jeremiah 19:5 & 32:35 totally ignores the fact that in Jeremiah, human sacrifice NEVER ENTERED God’s mind. Yet, you ignored the very absolute fact with your apologetic relativism that God demanded Abraham offer up Isaac ( Genesis 22: 1-2; Hebrews 11). If not, just why do the early rabbis see the demand from God here but you can’t (Genesis Rabbah 56:9)?

So, it's absolutes only when your subjectivism/relativism allows it. I now understand; sorry.

Bluemongoose said...

Harry, so if everything is subjective, then that means that very statement is subjective as well. You try to say the only thing that is for certain is the statement that nothing is for certain, but that is self-defeating.

Does your continuing education illustration shed light on a problem here, or does this scenario not apply to relativism?

How do you know the only thing not relative is the outdated past? You can make any statement you want, but if you don't back it up...

Could the early rabbis have been wrong or did you misinterpret something somewhere along the line? Hey, it happens. People frequently misinterpret the biblical verse about an eye for an eye. They think it talks about revenge when it's really about restitution.

Harry McCall said...

Blue, you’ve yet to come up with one absolute example yet.

Is the Bible an example of your absolute? What about God?

Pick an example from either the Bible or theology as an example of your never changing absolute and I’ll knock it down with newer theologies of God both with in the Bible and in creedal confessions.

You seem to have some theory of an never changing principle of an absolution, yet you offer no examples to back it up.

This is your philosophical dichotomy: Either you MUST have absolution or relativism; it’s an “either or with you“, but this dichotomy is now your Catch 21 problem.

There is ONLY one eternal in the universe which is change itself.

I will remain open and wait for an example of your absolute ideal. [Please don’t use “God” since this term is in a state of constant change in the Bible.]

Plus, to claim God never changes, but that only man’s understanding of him does uses circular reasoning and only begs the question even further.

Scott said...

I wrote: That's a lot of "if"s. Should we assert that a being who didn't have to follow any rules did exist, I could create dozens of grandiose supernatural scenarios that would make just as much "sense"

Bluemongoose wrote: But now that that's been illuminated for you, it kind of steals the thunder of your "grandiose" suggestion.

Are you suggesting that God does have to follow rules or is somehow bound by natural laws? If not, then It's unclear what has actually been stolen or illuminated. 



Bluemongoose wrote: So why do you believe God has an evil twin? Allow me to back up a little bit: Your statement here implies God is the original of which evil is the counterfeit. Why do you infer this?



Why might you think I believe "God is the original of which evil is the counterfeit?" Just because I ask a question, it doesn't mean I actually subscribe to it's implications.

Gandolf said...

Harry said "You seem to have some theory of an never changing principle of an absolution, yet you offer no examples to back it up."

What Harry?? you mean an absolute idiot, doesnt even count?

Alan said...

Harry McCall wrote: Oh, you must be a Bible Baptist who can trace his religious history all the way back past Jesus to straight to John the Baptist or to some Baptist Christian sect established before even Jesus called his first apostle.

Harry, people often interpret others as they interpret themselves. So let's discuss how you once defined yourself. From your curriculum vitae, you mentioned you were "rebaptized as a Baptist". Early in my Christian experience I ran into people who wanted to "own" me by having me baptized into their church even though I was already baptized and a confessing Christian. Southern Baptists and Church of Christ are notorious for this ill-conceived practice. This same spirit of “glorying in the flesh” is age old:

Gal 6:13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

I honestly feel this is where you were led astray. Instead of being Christ’s person, you became property of various organizations and clubs through the mechanisms of peer pressure, self-esteem, and recognition. Just because you step foot in a church, you are not guaranteed immunity from such downfalls. For this reason, churches have both types of individuals: lost and found

Harry McCall wrote: Say, Alan, since Christianity is true, just why don’t Lutherans, Wesleyans and Baptist regularly exchange pulpits?

If the United States actually existed, then why are there state borders? Many children fail their fathers but this does not negate the father. What’s more, I was a member of University Baptist Church but ministered from the pulpit at Olivet Presbyterian Church in my home town. I could make your head spin if I listed every denominational “border” I crossed during my lifetime. Often, the “border guards” are caring pastors who don’t want their sheep stolen or led astray. Your entire hypothesis is flawed. Man’s division does not necessarily imply Christ’s division. It may imply that man is in need of one who can reassemble broken pieces.

Thus far, this website has proven to me that Christianity is NOT "debunked", but man is.

Harry McCall said...

Alan, if you want to see God, just look in the nearest mirror.

Man is God. Man (maybe females too; I use man in a non-gender sense) wrote the Bible. Man carries out God’s bidding. Man canonized the books. Man = Paul - systemized salvation and NOT Jesus (Gospels vs. Romans). Men run the churches. Men ordain men to the ministry.

So just where is the concept called "God" in all this? He is as present in the above just as George Washington is still alive an present in all our fourth of Julys.

Fact is, without man as the energy system for the God concept, God is no more and ceases.

Sin is the denial for humanity to separate itself from the good that it has created: God!

balaun said...

Well here my simple understanding. Now as an example I have played a game called telephone where you say something in one persons ear and when it gets around the circle it always changes. Now when I played telephone it was in English for no more then let say 5 min. Now you expect me to believe a book that was written over the course of 1500 years and translated to 400+ languages is the divine book of god; sorry maybe it once was but im sure there are alterations. Now lets say there are no mistakes that its perfect why has there not been some one chosen by god to update the bible in the other 4500 years the earth has existed according to the bible when we know there are bones of Dinosaur in the earth that carbonating tells us our let say 65 million years old. If we argue god put them there either just because he felt like it or because we needed it to fuel our cars which cause damage to the ozone layer then he knew we would use that same mineral resources to power rockets burn people alive. All loving and caring god hmmm.

Now taken this is all divine plan then please tell me why Leviticus had entered into the book of god that "If a man lay with a man the same way he lay with a women he shall be put to death." can just be tossed out the window this is your gods divine word. What makes Christians and catholics and all the rest so mighty that they can disregard gods wishes when ever it doesn't suit them. And if thats the case can we not just disregard the entire bible if it doesn't suit us. I will not question if god exists or not as there can be no proof either way (same as with Santa, easter bunny, tooth fairy and Casper the friendly ghost) but The bible the only book that so called proves gods existence is so littered with with holes its astounding people hold it as high as they do. That book belongs in the fiction section with the rest on the man created gods.

Bluemongoose said...

Harry:

Lots of things have absolute boundaries. For instance, it's wrong to steal, lie and cheat -- just to name a few. Go ahead and knock these down. Your attempts will be fun to watch.

The Bible contains absolutes. God has absolute parameters.

So what are you concluding with the either/or scenario? You need to work on your follow-up.

God never changes argument. Why do you believe what you stated here is so?

Bluemongoose said...

Scott:

"Are you suggesing that God does have to rules or is somehow bound by natural laws?" Compound question, two answers. 1) There are rules God operates within: He will not violate our free will, He acts out of love for us, etc. 2) He is not bound by the natural/scientific laws that govern existence as we know it.

Original and counterfeit. I ask b/c 1) I'm trying to better understand where you're coming from; and 2) I've heard similar arguments before and wanted to know if that was the direction you were headed. So, ultimately, it's about clarification.

Harry McCall said...

Bluemongoose: “Lots of things have absolute boundaries. For instance, it's wrong to steal, lie and cheat -- just to name a few. Go ahead and knock these down. Your attempts will be fun to watch."

Re: A. “steal, lie and cheat” can be criminal (they violate some code of law on the Federal, State or Municipal level).

B. Or they can be civil (not in violation of any code of law, but that which causes personal damage or injury).

C. Or they can be religious in morality or ethics that offend some deity.

So you made much to do about nothing as I can steal, lie and cheat all I want to and suffer no ill consequences unless it’s covered under a criminal code of law and I realize it. Thus, your 3 absolutes on the criminal level are subject to my understanding.

As for as the civil law goes, you must prove damages in a civil court before any of your three absolutes are even considered wrong. 75% of the burden of proof is placed on the person making the charge.

On the religious level of morals and ethics, just pick a world religion, your 3 absoultes are totally subjective.

Thus, a woman who drives a car in Saudi Arabia is “breaking all three of your codes on the criminal, civil and religious level, but not in the United States.

So your so-called 3 hardcore absolutes are all subjective and subject to change!

Change is eternal.

Blue: “The Bible contains absolutes. God has absolute parameters.”

REALLY!

Let me repeat here my reply to you I posted earlier:

Harry: In what way? Relativism is a subset of Eternal Change. If not, just why does the New Testament writers only quote the LXX and not the MT text?

This fact totally sinks your claim “there is only one God and one Written Word (mind you, we're not talking about biblical translations).”

Now Blue, pick up A Concordance to the Septuagint And Other Greek Versions to the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) and just do a basic word study on אלהים, יהוה, אל, θεός, and κύριος then tell me the term “God’ is not in a constant state of change and relative to the current school that created the Biblical text.

Just why did Jesus not call God, his father, by either his personal name; Yahweh or even Adonai?

Is the concept of God as the Divine Warrior in the Hebrew Bible the same a the loving father of Jesus in the New Testament? No.

And you claim אל is never subject to change. This is where your $1.50 late fee at your local public library has hurt your Hebrew and Greek etymologies in their historical and theological context. (The ONLY absolute אל may have if, whether it’s used in the Hebrew Absolute or Construct cases!)

Blue: “Newer theologies. So is that the standard, the trite old vs. new battle?

Re: Jesus vs. the Pharisees. Pharisees vs. the Sadducees. Paul vs. Peter and the Judaizers (Jews whose theology had more in common with Jesus than with the Hellenistic Paul.)

If theologies don’t change in the Bible, then why the meeting of the Pillars in Acts 15?

Blue: “Why do you believe the either/or situation is now my catch 21 (22)?”

Re: Just look at the corner you just painted yourself into by forcing your current apologetics on to the MT, LXX and N.T.!

Blue: “2) Why can't I use "God"? That's the problem with many so-called atheists today: They ask a question about God, but yet they don't want answers that comes from the source that speaks about God.”

Re: Just what source, other than the MT, LXX or Greek N.T. text are your referring to??

Blue: “Finally, Issue No. 3) The term is constantly in a state of change. My answer: That's just your interpretation…”

Re: No. NO! Simply check out the words used for the English term “God” in any Hebrew or Greek lexicon. (These books are available on Inter-Library loan.)

Change is eternal.

Scott said...

1) There are rules God operates within: He will not violate our free will, He acts out of love for us, etc.

First, you say God will not violate our free-will. The problem here is that our definitions of free-will are not necessarily compatible. Can you elaborate as to what you mean by free-will, and what would constitute a violation of it? Otherwise, this claim tells me essentially nothing about what we should or should not expect God to do.

Second, when you say God acts of out love for us, you're not actually including or excluding particular actions. Instead, you've given a motivation. It's unclear how we could actually us this motivation to determine a particular action would or would not be in line with God's nature.

2) He is not bound by the natural/scientific laws that govern existence as we know it.

So, just to clarify, God is not bound to any known natural or scientific laws we know of, but may be bound to natural or scientific laws we are currently unaware of?

To clarify futher, from my perspective, "existence as we know it" is incomplete.

To use a more specific example, our current model of particle physics predicts the existence of a elementary particle known as the Higgs-Boson, which is thought to give other particles mass. We hope to find this particle when the the Large Hadron Collider comes back online later this year. However, should we not find this particle, it may be that our current model of physics is incorrect. Even if we should find the Higgs-Boson, it will only represent but one additional step in the goal of creating a unified theory that explains existence as we know it.

Based on this gap in our knowledge, it's unclear as to what God might or might not be bound by, or where God ends and where nature begins. Apparently, as with free-will, our definitions of nature are not comparable either.

Original and counterfeit.

Blue,

While my response was intended to give you a taste of your own medicine, it was also accurate. Nor is it clear where your original vs. counterfeit observations is coming from. Instead, it's a though experiment.

Given what we observe, how can we discern from the Trinity of Christianity, which currently allows Satan and his evil forces to wreak havoc through the universe, and an all powerful, all knowing and all good God locked in eternal battle with his evil twin?

Since both of these scenarios are incompatible with each other, both cannot be an accurate state of affairs. However, in comparison, both appear to have equal ability to account for what we observe, such as suffering, etc. Furthermore, one could describe the latter as a simpler account, which makes fewer assumptions and has less contradictions.

So, as theist, I'm asking on what basis could would you determine which is false and which is true?