From what we can see, no living thing “lives” forever, at least in a physical sense. If we presuppose the existence of God and say that he created life, I feel it would be safe to say that he defines it’s limitations. Back to the original argument concerning the destruction of the peoples inhabiting Canaan, whether they were killed by the Israelites or died of a heart attack at age 80, the end result is the same.

Like I said, and I feel it demonstrates God’s right to take life is the fact that we are mortal in the first place. If God didn’t have the right to take life, we would all live forever, unless you are saying that there was something wrong with God’s blueprint for life, a malfunction that leads to our death that He somehow didn’t know about.

Maybe what you mean by saying that the author of life has no right to determine it’s end is that God created life and the universe and doesn’t really care about what happens to it. Just trying to understand your viewpoint on this.

Regarding your post “I don’t believe a creator God would allow entities to exist that spread falsehoods….”, God, in His providence has given us freewill. In order for Him to keep people from spreading falsehoods he would have to take that away. In order for there to be able to choose to follow God out of our own freewill, He had to allow us the possibility of rejecting Him.

As far as your comment on eternal suffering for deceived ones, I believe the seeker will find what he is looking for. The Bible says if you seek God with your whole heart, you will find Him. It also states that it is not God’s will that anyone should perish, but that all should come to repentance. The deceived ones are not innocently seeking after God and winding up in hell as you suggest, but rather have itching ears and are looking for people who say what they want to hear. What I am saying is that no one will wind up in eternal suffering without choosing to do so.
You say it is more plausible that God doesn’t exist in light of religious deception, wars and bloodshed. From my point of view, these confirm the biblical concept of spiritual warfare. I’m not talking about jihad or trying to set up a theocracy or anything like that, but rather what Paul called “principalities, powers, the rulers of darkness, the spiritual host of wickedness” (See Ephesians Ch. 6).

I see what you’re getting at in terms of a man and woman creating life — that life would not exist had the two partners in question performed the requirements necessary for the fetus to exist. So I wouldn’t say that a sperm or egg have the same type of life compared to a just-born baby.

When humans (or any creatures) reproduce they can be said to “create life”, in the sense of a specific instance of life. Obviously they’re not creating the concept of life in general. I think part of the confusion arises here with two meanings of the word “life” being used – if God creates life (the concept, or the first instance of life), does he have the right to end life (in the sense of an individual life)? That doesn’t follow.

Besides, you must be able to see that even if God can be said to create each individual life from scratch (as I’m sure some christians would assert), does this necessarily give him the right to end that individual life? It’s not obvious to me that this follows. Maybe I’m wrong, if so, show me.

“I don’t believe a creator God would sow such chaos and confusion. It is more plausible that one religion is true and the others are falsehoods created by entities that don’t want us to know the truth.”

I don’t believe a creator God would allow entities to exist that spread falsehoods deceiving his creatures and causing religious wars and bloodshed and ultimately eternal suffering for the decieved ones. It is more plausible that such a God doesn’t exist.

“First off, if God created life, He certainly has the right to end it”

Why? Who says? I have the right to create life by having a child, I most certainly do not have the right to end it. You may say that God is different, but then you must explain why, as it is not obvious at all! You are making an argument as to why God is allowed to end life, but the proposition above takes as an assumption the conclusion you are trying to prove, therefore begging the question. You must demonstrate why God is allowed to end life he created when this obviously doesn’t apply to anything else in the universe.

First off, if God created life, He certainly has the right to end it. Whether through ordering the destruction of an entire nation as documented in the Old Testament or by allowing a heart attack or stroke to end a person’s life, our times are in HIS hands. If it was somehow wrong for God to end life, wouldn’t we all live forever in our physical bodies? Or is the real argument that God doesn’t exist at all?

Second, let’s be honest in our logic. Arguments judging God for his actions regarding the genocide of the nations inhabiting Canaan are self-defeating. From a human, or earthly perspective, the death of a person is the worst thing that can happen to him, since our life on earth is all that we have. If this statement is true, then it’s not logical to judge God since this argument presupposes that He doesn’t exist. If this statement is false and there is in fact a God and life after death, then God would be justified to end life as the author of all life. Furthermore, in this viewpoint, an eternal soul would be worth more than a mortal life, and God would be righteous in protecting the Messianic line as promised through Abraham, through which all of the nations of the world would be blessed.

It is clear that all of the world’s religions can not be true. They are all mutually exclusive. If we say they are all true, i.e. unitarianism, in essence we are saying that they are all false due to their completely different beliefs on the identity of God and his expectations of mankind.

I don’t believe a creator God would sow such chaos and confusion. It is more plausible that one religion is true and the others are falsehoods created by entities that don’t want us to know the truth.

Don’t fall into the trap of judging the gospel of Christ by it’s so-called followers. There are many tares in the crop. Peter himself said there would be many false prophets and teachers that would cause the way of the truth to be blasphemed. 2 Peter 2:1-2

Interesting to see that after two millennia it still comes down to Jesus’ own question:”But who do you say that I am?” Matthew 16:15

And yes – the Meaning of Jesus is one of my all-time favorite books, though someone is not likely to discover Wright’s true brilliance there.

I find Borg refreshing because, even though he is a revisionist, he doesn’t demand that the Christian faith be interpreted from a strict naturalist/materialist world-view (like Spong & Crossan): he leaves a little room still for a genuine spiritual encounter, even if his Jesus fits best within a semi-mystical panentheist fremework Again, I disagree with him plenty, but I guess if I were to listen closely to the more theologically ‘liberal’ camp, Borg (and E.P. Sanders), would be the voices I pay closest attention to.