Haven't we already heard all of this before, except last time it was Communism under Soviet rule? And then the UN?

Our mixed-market of Socialism and Capitalism here in Canada is doing pretty well for itself; and while I can't speak for everyone in the nation, when I had to have a surgical procedure... well. Let me lay out the situation. At the time I was 23; was still paying off student loans from a year ago; lived entirely on my own doing freelance work. I also lived in a major city, which meant high expenses just to get by (about half my monthly income was stuck going to rent and utility bills). Without going into detail, I ended up coming down with a condition that would require a surgical procedure. This was not something I could actively have prevented; rather it was the inevitable result of a certain part of my genetic heritage. In the USA, I quite honestly wouldn't have been able to undergo such a treatment without incurring bills that would have utterly demolished what little I did have. Under our system, however, I was very promptly taken care of, got a surgical date for just a few weeks later, and soon enough I was all patched up and ready to go. There was no massive wait list (despite being in Toronto, and thus living in a high population area); staff were very courteous and kind, and I was given a prescription to handle the post-surgical pain for once I got home. Had I not been able to get the procedure done, I would have spent anywhere from hours to days at a time in paralyzing pain, well beyond what over the counter pain relief could deal with. (N.B. The few-week wait was a necessity due to doctors orders regarding preliminary preperation)

This is what our tax dollars go to, and I don't mind, because when I finally did need the help, it was there for me.

The system has worked for me. I'm sure there are incidents that don't shine too brightly on it, but then I'd be amazed if there was a perfect system anywhere.

anyway, enough anecdotal evidence (which is ultimately what that is). Globalization has been the big fear for a long time anyway. Marks of the Beast throughout history have been taken as - tattoos, bar codes, RFID microchips, debit cards (no I'm not kidding), social security numbers, and more. It's easy to see the inevitable apocalypse if you keep changing what it is we're supposed to be looking for, and as for unifying peace in the name of saving what's left of the earth, I still doubt it would work due to the number of differing philosophies. After all, if you dislike democrats/socialists right now, you gotta see what's up in Europe because man oh man, even here in Canada your democratic party looks middle of the road at best, and close to half your nation hates it.

Again, apologies for the delay in my response.

Well, why does god go from sending bears to, if not kill, then beat the bejesus out of children who made fun of his prophet being bald, to "turn the other cheek"? Exodus 15:3 and Psalms 18:34 and 144:1 proclaim god to be a lord of war (and there are many instances in the OT of him ordering Israel to war), while Romans 15:33, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 2 Thesselians 3:16 and Hebrews 13:20 say he is a god of peace. He can't very well be both, and based on his actions in the old testament, I can't say he would deserve to be called a god of peace.

This again is ignoring the more rational answer, in that god makes a fantastic rhetorical device and communicating "his will" is a fantastic motivator for war - even George W. Bush used the same strategy in his presidency - and once said wars were part of history, it was easy for the victors to say it was the will of the lord and that god was with them. I ignore it on the grounds that a) we're discussing the character of god as well and the bible really is the only source you can use to discuss his behaviour since it supposedly is the sole source of truth in the matter. The problem lies in people who cherry pick sections that present a moral quandary because of an action that doesn't mesh with their view of god, and then argue that it is metaphorical, so whatever atrocity occured there was not a direct representation of god.

now this is a diff matter.  Let's look at this passage. 

This is found in 2 Kings. 

Many that wish to believe in the big bad wrathful and hateful God always point to this passage as proof text. 

At first reading it's horrific isn't it?  These little children just playing when they see this strange looking man they began to chant "go on up, you baldhead!"  Then he curses them and a bear devours them. 

Do you want the rest of the story?   

The first thing worth mentioning is the Hebrew words for "little children."  This is an unfortunate translation as these were not "little children" as we might think of them. 

In the Hebrew it's "young lads" or "young men."  From numerous examples where ages are specified in the OT we know that these were young men from 12-30.  Isaac is described this way when he was easily in his early 20's.  Genesis 22:12.

Joseph also was described this way and he was 17 years old.  Gen 37:2.  In fact the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15.

So "young" would be more correct to say  than "little" would be. 

Now back to Elisha.  Was he an old man short on patience and hair?  No.  Elisha can hardly have been more than 25 himself when this incident happened.  So he would have been close in age to thise young men. 

So what was so wrong in calling him a "baldhead?"  The word baldhead was a term of scorn in the OT Isa 3:17,24.  So scarce was baldness in that time that it carried with it a suspicion of leprosy. 

This term was used in utter contempt as a word of insult marking Elisha, a Prophet of God, as despicable.  This insult was aimed not so much at the prophet as the God who sent him.  The point is clear from the phrase "go on up"

These youths were alluding to Elijah's translation to heaven.  They did not believe or acknowledge it as God's work in their midst.  Basically they were saying, after Elijah's rapture to heaven that Elisha too should blast off with him.  They were telling him to "get out of here."  The connection cannot be missed. 

This attack was on God, not really the prophet.  Elisha merely cited the law of God which the inhabitants of Bethel knew well.  Moses had taught: 

"If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me....I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children"  (Lev 26:21-22)

Elisha was only content to leave the work of judging to God so He pronounced a judgment on them and asked God to carry out the action which he had promised when his name, his cause and his word came under attack. 

This was brutal but it was mild compared to the cruelty of the Assyrians who would appear to complete God's judment in 722 B.C.  The disastrous fall of Samaria would have been avoided had the people repented after the bear attack and the increasingly severe divine judgments that followed it.  But instead of turning back to God, Israel, mocked God's messengers, depised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of God was aroused against his people.

Instead of demonstrating unleashed cruelty, this bear attack shows God trying repeatedly to bring his people back to himself thru smaller judgments until the people's sin is so great and judgment must finally come full force.

God is always slow to judge being very slow in his wrath.  He always gives many many warnings before he runs out of patience.  Justice will always prevail but not at the expense of his mercy and grace which trumps judgment when forgiveness is applied. 

In today's culture we have forgotten how Holy God really is.  God is a holy God and because of that holiness justice has to be meted out.  His holiness demands it.  He's also a God of patience.  He allows alot to happen before he takes action, but when he does it does come swiftly as it will in the end times with the bowl and trumpet judgments.  Right now I think he's letting the cup of iniquity fill to the brim.  From what I do understand about scripture I believe he's letting this happen right now so we won't be able to come up with any excuses for our behavior.  It's becoming increasingly clear just how debauched we are becoming.  We will be without excuse.  So the next question would be.....will you see Christ as a lion or as a lamb? 

No, not at all like I tried to show you above.  Besides all that, in order to achieve peace quite often war has to happen.  For instance WWII.  We needed to wage all out war, by dropping those bombs, on Japan to achieve peace.  Usually after every war, comes peace.  You see this over and over again.  In God's case, he's depicted as both a lion and a lamb.  That's not a contradiction.  To his enemies he's a lion, to his own people they see a lamb.  

When a shepherd protects his flock he may have to war with a predator, an enemy to his flock.  Sometimes this could be a wolf or a lion.  Shepherds have been known to strangle with their bare hands these intruders in order to protect their flock.  It may seem brutal but it's the only way to achieve peaceful conditions for the flock.  The enemy has to be killed for peace. 

Motivation.   God does what he does for the benefit of his people.  Those earthly agents you speak of do it for their own greed, pride and hostility.  When God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden he did so for their own good.  I'm sure they didn't like it much. He could have killed them right there for their act of rebellion but instead he showed them mercy and forgiveness.   Hopefully they were very grateful for this mercy extended.  I'm guessing they were. 

When God says He's a jealous God it's not the same jealousy as we're familiar with.  We're  jealous because we wish to have something someone else has. We can do some pretty awful things to get what we want when that green eyed monster grabs us.  God is jealous FOR us not OF us and there is a diff.  He wants the best for us and everything he does is for the best even though it does seem strange and odd to us at times. Even if it involves war and killing. 

I suppose my kids felt like that when I spanked their butts for their rebellious ways.  To them I didn't seem very loving at the time...but the outcome is that they are well adjusted young men who are going places.  Everywhere they go and every job they have people make comments about their attitudes and work ethics.  It just didn't happen.  If I allowed them to stay the way they were most likely they wouldn't have been able to hold down a job or get along with others like they do today. 

Also since God is the giver of life, he alone, has the right to take it. 

Why?  Sin against God is sin against God.  It doesn't matter if they're nice to those around them or not.  If eternity was based on works then your homosexual pot-smoking friend would be "in."  But that's not the criteria.  There are plenty of "nice" atheists who shake their fist at God while helping their neighbor.  That's not going to help their case when they stand before God. 

Now having said that I tend to believe that there's diff degrees in Hell based on a couple of scriptures that allude to this.  So maybe your homosexual pot-smoking friend will not be quite as uncomfortable as the guy in the back alley.  But one thing's for sure.....Hell is not a good place regardless of degree.  So I wouldn't take comfort in that. 

It's actually pretty simple.  Even a child can understand.  God is a holy God and we are not.  A Holy God cannot let unholiness stand before him and abide with him for ever.  Because we are tainted with dirty sin we need to be cleansed before we can enter into his eternal abode.  That was the whole point in providing a completely unblemished human being to die in our place to redeem us back to him.  That's why Christ said "I am the door."  We cannot enter heaven without going thru him first.   In order to go to him we go thru the cross.  When we do so, we can't help but get his blood on us which is what cleanses us.  Only then are we found acceptable in God's sight.  We can't work or scub ourselves clean enough no matter how hard we try.  We have to go thru the cross which involves getting blood upon our soul.  That's where "we are saved by the blood of the lamb" comes from. 

I misunderstood you.  I thought you were speaking of people in general going about committing atrocities on their own and comparing it to what God was okaying in the OT. 

Well then what you wrote is untrue.  What God ordered for the Jews to do against their enemies was not as bad as what was happening to them.  Like I said before......do some searching on the Assyrians for one thing sometime just to see  how vile they were. 

But you'd have to give me specific examples to what you're referring to because there are diff reasons for each war Israel was involved in against her enemies.  I'll give you one for an example. 

Numbers 31 the Israelites were to totally destroy the Midianites.  You, as an unbeliever might ask how this can be morally right to do so? 

First of all you have to know that it was the Midianites who corrupted God's people by leading them into idolatry at Baal-Peor so that 24,000 Israelites died in the plage (Num 25;9).  It was necessary to totally eliminate this evil influence from Israel.  God had a plan that a redeemer would come thru the line of Israel and Satan's plan was to stop it.   So God judged his own people and many died as a result. 

The abominable nature of the influence which the Midianites had upon Israel in leading them into idolatry merited the destructive judgment of God.  God dealt severely and decisively with this cancer.  The moral justification for this action is found in the fact that God has the right to give and take life.  Since the wages of sin is death and the Midianites engaged in a terrible sin, they justly reaped the consequences of God's vengeance. 

Then there was the Canaanites and they were far from "innocent."  They were cancerously immoral, "defiled" with every kind of abomination including child sacrifice.  Also many don't know but God had given Israel's enemies over 400 years to repent of their wickedness.  They had every opportunity to turn from their wickedness.  God told Abraham that in 400 years from then the descendants of his would return to inherit this land (the inhabitants would be killed), but that the iniquity of the people was not yet full.  This prophetic statement indicated that God would not destroy the people of the land, including those who dwelt in Jericho until their sins were such that their guilt merited their complete destruction in judgment. 

So what you're seeing when you see the OT violence and wars is really the judgment of God after giving plenty of time for them to repent of their evilness.  They were not innocent as you suppose.  The same will happen again and I believe the time is drawing close that the cup of our iniquity is becoming full. 

To give you another idea how wrong you are in assuming that God is a violent God for violence sake, think about the story of Jonah.  When he first got the message about going to preach to the Assyrians in Ninevah he bolted.  He took off in the opposite direction.  The reason?  One, he was afraid of these very violent people and two, he knew that if they listened to his preaching and they repented that God would give them mercy and forgiveness.  But Jonah's wish was that God would destroy those in Ninevah so he didn't wish to convert them.  But God's desire was they had a chance to turn from their evil ways.  End of story was that Jonah did reluctantly preach, those in Ninevah did repent and God did not destroy them.  Jonah wasn't happy. 

Well here's the tricky part: if the crusades were just men manipulating the word of god, is it not also feasible for the conflicts in the Old Testament to have been much the same, with a simple case of victors rewriting history as needed?

As for choice, it's a pretty awful choice - stick to this route specifically or you suffer forever. That's as much a choice as doing something with a gun pointed to your head. And heaven help you if you disagree or question the morality of certain aspects, because then you're going to suffer forever anyway. Also, there are several hundred, maybe several thousand other points of view saying that if you don't do what they say, you're going to suffer. There is no magical sensation of "knowing" which one specifically is right, nor does any particular text convince everyone who reads it that it's right. They can say their path is right, but there's as much proof for that as there is any other path (I'm aware you'll disagree on that point). What's worse, so many of these paths essentially require that you be inhumane to others until they join you on your path.

Let me repeat. This is like a father who has two children. One child obeys without a spark of questioning. They don't think for themselves whenever an order is given; they just do it. The other child is still a good person, but they have the audacity to question. For this, they suffer forever. Also, the father might send the first kid out to kill the second. Why does god punish us merely for using the natural inquisitiveness he is supposed to have given us?

Why does it matter to god if someone likes the same gender? Why does god care if you listen to rock music, or read comics, or listen to the beatles, or play video games, or play dungeons and dragons, or enjoy any other scapegoat for the ills of society? Indeed, if as you said the authority of god can be twisted into things he doesn't want, like the crusades, why is it wrong to think for yourself, and try to just do right for all, instead of trusting that you picked the one guy who isn't twisting these words around? Would god not look at someone who lived exactly as they said they would live, because that's the only way they could live, and see them as better than those who professed to live one way and lived another?

From whence comes gods ability to forgive everything? If the "sin" is directly against god, and it is both realized and apologized for, certainly he would have the right to forgive (or not to). But what about cases where said sin is against another person - such as cheating, theft or other such earthly crimes? God would not be the actual victim in this case, the other person would be. Yet there are many who would feel that as long as the perpretator apologized to god, and not to the slighted individual, they are forgiven, given a clean slate. Does god do this? What about cases where the perpretator realizes much later that what they did was wrong, but for whatever reason they cannot give an apology to the slighted individual? Do they get a chance to apologize after death? Or are they punished for not being mindful of what little time they may have with others? If they get a chance to apologize after death, why doesn't everyone?

I think many people use god as a coping method or a shield to hide behind instead of what "should" be the purpose of god. It ultimately provides a secure, typically unchanging platform to stand on in a world where many things are not as simple as black and white. Some people can't handle this ambiguity. So again I ask, why are these people better than those who honestly, earnestly, try to simply do right despite their human limitations? Is god so upset by those who do not want to be judgemental, or those who simply want to do right for as many as they can, that he cannot forgive what any reasonable individual would understand?

Why can god not forgive unbelief? Surely he understands how, from a logical viewpoint, it's quite easy to conclude that there's no evidence for him existing.

Furthermore your fire metaphor might be correct if said sole path out was also one which I frankly find miserable because it condemns others to the flame, as part of your own escape plan.

And if God IS ok with us questioning him, then clearly he should see that that is exactly what I'm doing here. I'm questioning everything, taking nothing for granted, and not assuming that because one source says one thing that that's the way it is. As far as purpose... who says I have to have a purpose? I make my own purpose - in my case, caring for the ill.

I apologize for the brevity of this response but lunch is calling!

I found it very revealing to read through all your posts. I have to admit that I skimmed quite a few though, but I got the general points of view quite clearly.

I have my own example of religion in the family.
My brother Mark was never very religious, but then he read a book about the devil and became really really scared. It is generally believed between my siblings and me that he just wanted to protect himself by any means necessary - and then he found out that sacraments act sort of like shields. Sooo guess what he did. He met a woman - girl really, she was 21 and he was 14 years older at the time - "met" is a strong word. She saw his picture in some girly magazine because he had taken part in something called "the hottest astrosingles" sometime earlier. He is good looking and the photographers just asked him in a cafe he was willing to earn a few bucks and took his picture. So they met via this magazine, and married fairly quickly. Mind you, this marriage was solely for the sacrament - not because he really loved her (or that is my interpretation) It did not last long, and currently my brother is in the process of anulling the whole thing. It takes about 3 years for the whole churchlaw trial to go through and it looks promising.

My brother is fanatically religious to the point that it drives everybody crazy - and drove his wife away. He goes to church every day if he can but is totally unsocial at the same time. His arguments are all really intellectual and he reads a ton of books on theology and whatnot, but it is impossible to really have a good debate about religion with him because he is fanatic and a fundamentalist catholic. And pigheaded lol but I still love him.

I find it in general very problematic to debate religion at all, because what you believe does define who you are. To tell someone that what he bases his whole actions on is wrong does not simply question wether he likes blue or red better, it attacks every moral value and every ethical decision that person makes, made or will make in the future, how he'll raise his children etc. It is no wonder that people sometimes fight to the death for this very reason, it attack integrity and honour. I think everybody should just do whatever he wants, if you believe in god or not should be a private decision and not be allowed to be judged by others at all. Whatever happens after we die nobody knows for sure anyway, so it is a waste of energy to debate wether someone is allowed in heaven or not or if paradise exists or not etc.

And then, your debates about the bible and specific text passages or what kind of god god really is are really not going anywhere at all. The bible in itself is not a book that suddenly appeared. It is a conglomerate of texts that come from different periods of time, and especially the old testament has different version of god. Monotheism did not suddenly spring up, it evolved as well, and there is no contradiction in the old testament when god appears as wrathful in some passages and totally different in others. It is not infact the same god at all but two different gods. Every theology 101 student learns that - and I met some and asked them about it. Furthermore, the bible has been translated, copied wrongly and thus altered so manytimes over time that solely textbased debates are ridiculous anyway. Nothing in the bible can be taken literal but has to be interpreted.
Some historical context is useful while reading the old testament, and that can be used to analyze the moral questions that arise. It is impossible to answer questions regarding morality with one general allcovering revelation. Like I said, those incidents have to be treated seperatedly - and interpreted with historical and cultural context in mind.

I have to point out though, that despite all the horrible things that happened under churche rule during the ages, the church has accomplished many great things as well. Charity - in fact, that was the reason why bishops had power in ancient rome starting in the 4th century, because they had "control" over a large portions of christians that lived in the city. Roman gentry generally lived in the countryside and did not have a powerbasis in the cities. Correlation of power and religion started very early..
Hospitals in the middle ages were mostly run by monasteries or nunneries, schools and university itself developed because the church needed skilled people and pushed those institutions. There were many great saints that did great things and convinced people to follow their example because they lived what they preached themselves.

Personally, I have a problem with institutionalized religion because it is so intricatly connected with political power and ambition, and I think those two should stay absolutely seperate. I can lead a good christian life without believing in some mammoth catholic church that only manifested itself as a institution about 1000 years after Jesus was crucified.

Yes my brother is roman catholic. The funny thing is that he found his faith or whatever he has when hew as around 30. Before that he never even knew where the nearest church was.

But I disagree with you historically on the account of the OT and the origin of the catholic church.

It is true that Constantine declared that christians should not be punished or presecuted, but it was in fact not he who declared christianity a state religion but another emperor after him. There is alot of debate about Constantine's motivation and it is really complex so I won't get into it in detail. Some say it was a political ploy to secure power and stabilize the roman empire which had huge problems in the 4th century bc, and that Constantine was not a christian himself but worshipped a form of Apollo, the sungod. That is supposedly where sunday as the day of worship originates. Others claim he was a christian and fulfilled an oath he took after he had a vision of a golden cross before a decisive battle against his CoConsul at the time and concerted to christianity afterwards. If you ask me, Constantine was not really a very good man, he killed his own wife and son for treason.

The church as an institution though took a very long time to manifest as the Roman catholic church with its HQ in Rome. There was hardly unity among the early christians, and huge portions of Europe remained pagan and it took a long time until Christianity took firmly root. I grew up where christian irish monks first started to convert germanic tribes north of the alps. There are some really old monasteries there from the 8th century. Charles the great did alot to unify the church, did you know that? He added and influenced the way church services were held, he wanted priests to wear special gowns and to add more pomp to make it more glorious and interesting - or so I have read. He unified the monestaries under his rule and passed a law that each monestary was required to have at least one bible in it - in the 9th century. Before that most monks had never even read the scripture themselves. It took then another 2 centuries until the roman catholic church started to appear as a coherent organization, before that it was basically just wandering priests or monks that preached whatever version they believed. There was no canon or dogma.

Genesis 1 was written during israelite captivity in Babylon. The babylonians believed in gods that viewd mankind as abomination. Genesis 1 was basically a dichotomic world construct to the babylonian one. In their version god created man as his crown achievement. At least that is what my teacher taught us in school. So it may be at the beginning of the bible in the pentateuch but that does not automatically mean that it was written first. I have to admit though that I did not really read all of the old testament. I know most important stories though and I really like the book of Ruth - its my name.

Personally, I am religious if not overly pious. I constantly have my brother in mind who is fundamentally pious but not a very good christian if you ask me. My mother is very religious and her faith has helped her to be strong. She is the strongest person I know. I have never seen her read the bible though. No time - I have 5 siblings. One of my aunts ran away with 16 to join a nunnery in rome and we talked about religious topics often at home, mostly after church on sunday when we were having brunch. I believe that there is alot of wisdom to be found in the bible, no doubt, and it is possible to lead a good and just life by that. I would never discredit this, but not everything in the bible was meant to be taken literally. The story of Job for example, god and satan making a bet? Comeon, that is clearly not meant litererally but allegorically. I stand by what I said about the OT being something that is comprised of texts from different times and contexts. That does not mean that there is no organization.

For the NT, not everybody knew how to write during the middle ages after all, and if a copist was sloppy he wrote down something wrong and the next person who copied from him took over his mistake.. that is just one example. The new testament was translated from greece to latin to german to english to other languages. Translation is tricky and meaning shifts very subtely. I know because english is not my native language - german is.

I am from Germany, and religion here is different from anything in the states anyway. Church communities don't really exist the way they do in the US, which I really like. People help each other out, know everybody and really are a community. If youre new in town the first place to look for is a church - youll find new friends quickly. I have been an exchange student for a year in Iowa in a really small town new Mason City (Sheffield), and it had 5 churches. And everybody went to church to meet friends or to do chat aferwards. I am not sure how many really really went there because they wanted to meet god, but it was a ritual that held the town together.

I find it really interesting to exchange knowledge and to debate about such things as religion but it is a very dicy topic. For example, I don't believe that homosexuals should be condemned by pastors in church. I find that bigoted. But I assume that you have a different oppinion on that and it is probably a good way to start a fierce argument. This argument could then easily branch out into every aspect of personality and character that the respective people have, basically ending in trashin each others. That is what I mean with arguing about religion being so difficult, because it not just something that is detached from who you are and can be anaylized neutrally.

Your bible history is very wrong.  Not sure where you're getting your information but you haven't got things straight.  For instance Genesis was written by Moses and it was way before the Babylonian captivity.  The captivity was in 586 BC and is very well documented.  You don't even have to have biblical scholars to tell you this.  This is all recorded in secular history as well as biblical. 

Ruth is a great book and full of meaning.  Ruth is a beautiful name and she was portrayed as a beauty.  The whole reason for Ruth was to show the geneology at the end of the story and link Christ with Boaz and Ruth thru the line of David.  It's a great story of a kinsman redeemer with Christ as the shadow behind the story.  He, as you know, is our kinsman redeemer who saved us from a terrible fate just like Boaz did his duty and saved Ruth from hers. 

We're hoping to go to Poland in September to help a little Baptist church there.  It's very very Catholic there and this little church gets alot of persecution from the RCC. 

Well not to me it's not.  I'm not afraid to speak out.  I guess that means I'm getting old.  I realize how short the time is and how little time we have.  We are only guaranteed today.  Tomorrow is not ours necessarily.  We may not have another chance to share the gospel with another. 

No worries here.  I won't argue.  I don't mind a friendly debate but it's not worth arguing over.   I do have a diff opinion but if it makes you uncomfortable I won't share it....but I can tell you  my opinion is biblical because the bible is my plumbline.  You can't take a crooked stick and measure it next to another crooked stick and call it good.  To find out if  your stick is straight you need to take the crooked stick and measure it to one that is perfectly straight. 

Job is a pretty terrible book since it's all about how Job had his life ruined and his children (and I think wife?) were all killed because god made a bet with the devil.

Anyway time is once again a precious commodity for me (chem exam next thursday complete with a massive section on organic chem), but as far as hell and all that goes - if god really doesn't want anybody to suffer there, why couldn't he simply "deactivate" a soul, or turn hell "off"?  As far as the "only god will let you see" part of your argument goes, many religions state similar things - for example, only Allah can show me the path, depending on who you ask. In a world where hundreds of religions, many of them mere branches of other religions, say they are all the right one, how is anyone to simply pick the right one? Let's take, for example, you and Lulapilgrim. Both of you belong to branches of Christianity. Both of you posit that your particular path is the right one. So which one is right? You both have the same amount of claim - your holy book and holy men say this; her holy book and holy men say that. To an outside observer, neither is particularly convincing.

So why is God asking us to deduce a specific denomination of a specific religion on threat of damnation?

Also as for the other person, the dude needs to chill out. Let the kid get baptized; it'll have no bearings on decisions made later in life. Indoctrination later on may, but even that isn't foolproof. Just let the little bugger realize his or her own destiny. Long as they aren't forcing their beliefs on others or acting in life with cruel intent, meh.