NationStates Jolt Archive

Everything has a purpose, even suffering. The suffering of the soul leads different people down different paths, but almost certainly ones that they would not have travelled if they remained whole and safe. I would not want to live in a world where there was no suffering, so much opportunity is there in it for spiritual and emotional growth. In suffering, a person comes to know themselves and their limitations, their potential and fortitude, and to bond with humanity that suffers everyday, in every conceivable way.

There is nothing evil in it. It is natural.

You are not talking about "no suffering", then; you are talking about altering the perception of it.
same thing. suffering isn't suffering if it's not felt.

One night a man had a dream. He dreamed
he was walking along the beach with the LORD.


Across the sky flashed scenes from his life.
For each scene he noticed two sets of
footprints in the sand: one belonging
to him, and the other to the LORD.


When the last scene of his life flashed before him,
he looked back at the footprints in the sand.


He noticed that many times along the path of
his life there was only one set of footprints.


He also noticed that it happened at the very
lowest and saddest times in his life.


This really bothered him and he
questioned the LORD about it:


"LORD, you said that once I decided to follow
you, you'd walk with me all the way.
But I have noticed that during the most
troublesome times in my life,
there is only one set of footprints.
I don't understand why when
I needed you most you would leave me."

The LORD replied:


"My son, my precious child,
I love you and I would never leave you.
During your times of trial and suffering,
when you see only one set of footprints,
it was then that I carried you."

I belive that God exists, nothing will change that. It's obvious that some here belive otherwise, I feel sorry for them.

Accept that God does not control our will or our planet. God cannot, or will not, directly interdict events from happening. To do so would be irresponsible and in direct violation of our free will.

If God halted all of our potential disasters and misfortunes, why would it stop there? Why not stop all car crashes, and all deaths ... and then fix us up in a new Garden of Eden where he takes care of us.

How could a benevolent God let such disaster happen you ask? Ask yourself how a benevolent God could 'mother' his creation from birth to death, always making sure baby doesn't get hurt. Sounds like a control freak God who wants all all ends to be tied up nice and neat.

How boring and pathetic.

Asia Toll Nears 77,000 As Aid Arrives (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041229/ap_on_re_as/quake_tsunami) (AP) - Cargo planes touched down with aid Wednesday, bearing everything from lentils to water purifiers to help survivors facing the threat of epidemic after this week's quake-tsunami catastrophe. The first Indonesian military teams reached the devastated west coast of Sumatra island, finding thousands of bodies and increasing the death toll across 12 nations to nearly 77,000. The international Red Cross warned that the toll could eventually surpass 100,000.

This is either proves He (or She) doesn't exist, doesn't care, or is just really pissed off. I vote for the 3rd option.

same thing. suffering isn't suffering if it's not felt.
It's the difference between removing the source of suffering and inhibiting the experience of suffering. If you eliminate the sources of suffering, i.e. bad stuff, it will have the same result of no suffering for the individuals. A more sound solution than altering the human structure, no? Do you really want people to be made into something less than they are now?

The point of the argument is not to win. It's just to argue.

Oh okay, and the point of war is not to win, it's just to pop off guns.

You're telling me that most of the arguers in this thread AREN'T trying to win? Everyone is just an aloof, intellectually stimulated, impartial, neutral fellow with no ambitions of achieving anything, or persuading anybody, or walking away with a sense of accomplishment?

You may believe that it's not about winning, but I don't.

So, kindly get the fuck out of the thread if you don't like it.

Who says I don't like it? It's not like I expected anyone to go, "oh okay, Santa Barbara doesn't want us arguing about God so I won't." I was just, how you say, trying to view things in a new way and expressing my beliefs.

You should be enjoying that aspect of my post!

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html (See here)

You have no evidence to support your claims either. You have yet to provide anything from the Bible or any other Christian source that describes the Charachter of God as someone whose job it is to keep the world a good, nice, place all the time. Tell me, where exactly do you get the idea that it is God's job to protect humanity from this kind of stuff. It certianly isnt the Bible.
You're right. I dont' have specific bible quotes. I'm just going by the fact that many christians beleive god loves everyone, is all powerfull, and all knowing and extrapolating from there.

During the time of the Roman Empire Christians were rounded up and executed by crucifiction and immolation by Emeror Nero. Even with the threat of execution for even uttering the name of Christ, the books of the Bible and the belief of God survived. How, without some divine aid, did these texts and beliefs stay alive? Near the end of WWII, American troops found the concentration camps. When they arrived the captives came forth and through their tears thanked God for they had been saved. They did not condemn him, but glorified him. How could these events have come to pass without God? A scientist will tell you that nothing happens by chance, there are no coincidences. By chance alone, those texts would not have endured the milleniums. By chance, Hitler messed up enough that the Allied Forces penetrated Germany. Yeah, by chance...I'm so sure.
Ideas don't need divine aid to survive. Falun Gong is severely persecuted in China. It goes on. Baha'i is persecuted in Iran. People still beleive.

Oh okay, and the point of war is not to win, it's just to pop off guns.

You're telling me that most of the arguers in this thread AREN'T trying to win? Everyone is just an aloof, intellectually stimulated, impartial, neutral fellow with no ambitions of achieving anything, or persuading anybody, or walking away with a sense of accomplishment?

You may believe that it's not about winning, but I don't.
I too believe that most of the arguments on these boards are for the pleasure of expressing ideas that shock, amuse and amaze, or just plain present a point of view. I don't think it's about changing minds.

Oh okay, and the point of war is not to win, it's just to pop off guns.

You're telling me that most of the arguers in this thread AREN'T trying to win? Everyone is just an aloof, intellectually stimulated, impartial, neutral fellow with no ambitions of achieving anything, or persuading anybody, or walking away with a sense of accomplishment?

You may believe that it's not about winning, but I don't.



Who says I don't like it? It's not like I expected anyone to go, "oh okay, Santa Barbara doesn't want us arguing about God so I won't." I was just, how you say, trying to view things in a new way and expressing my beliefs.

You should be enjoying that aspect of my post!
I know I'm not going to convince Neo that his god either doesn't exist or doesn't fit the 3 O's description. I just like to debate with him.

You're right. I dont' have specific bible quotes. I'm just going by the fact that many christians beleive god loves everyone, is all powerfull, and all knowing and extrapolating from there.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html (Read this)

Exactly. Your EXTRAPOLATING. You havnt found a real Christian principal. All you have said is that "You" (a non Christian I presume) think that if God is all powerful and all loving then he should stop all suffering. But the fact of the matter is there is nothing in the Bible nor any Christian theology to agree with you. Your logic would only be true if your idea was claimed to be true by Christians. And two parts of it are. God is all powerful and he is all loving. But these two do not mean he should intercede to protect us from nasty stuff. The Bible doesnt claim that so why does this disprove God.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html (Read this)

Exactly. Your EXTRAPOLATING. You havnt found a real Christian principal. All you have said is that "You" (a non Christian I presume) think that if God is all powerful and all loving then he should stop all suffering. But the fact of the matter is there is nothing in the Bible nor any Christian theology to agree with you. Your logic would only be true if your idea was claimed to be true by Christians. And two parts of it are. God is all powerful and he is all loving. But these two do not mean he should intercede to protect us from nasty stuff. The Bible doesnt claim that so why does this disprove God.
I say that it does simply because of the definitions of the terms All Loving, and All Powerfull. I think it's logical to assume an all loving being would do anything in his power to protect and help those he loves. And if he's all powerfull, well then those he loves never need worry about anything again.


It's a pretty long webpage Neo, I think I'll just give up the argument and not read it. You win.

I say that it does simply because of the definitions of the terms All Loving, and All Powerfull. I think it's logical to assume an all loving being would do anything in his power to protect and help those he loves. And if he's all powerfull, well then those he loves never need worry about anything again.


Why is it logical. Just think for a second what would happen without any suffering at all. And read the entire web page. At least try and understand.

When mankind misuses his intelligence and resources, the only way GOD can act is by showing man his place.

so, logically, HE attacks a region of the world where resources and technology are extremely limited relative to certain other regions (i.e. Japan, US, Europe). by punishing the people who aren't misusing their intelligence and resources, GOD sends a powerful message to those who presume to use their intelligence, resources, and technology to save human lives. that message being: i can kill you all, so don't even bother.


With all the technology and science, mankind could not protect the people who died in the Tsunami wave in ASIA.

well, yes, there are some limitations. according to you, we are up against an all-powerful GOD. i mean, by definition there is nothing we can do if he chooses to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people. now, why we should turn around and worship a murderous, evil diety like that...well, that's your concern, i suppose :).


Though some people claim this region did not have the same network as the one installed in the pacific, the fact is mankind could do nothing.

yep, GOD sure learned them good on that one. good thing he killed all those people before they could get educated and continue the improvements that were underway in their region...now he's set them back at least a decade, so they can live in horrid and primitive conditions with little to no infrastructure! just the way GOD likes it!


It is a pointer that in future too mankind will not be able to do much against natural disasters or even unnatural ones (challenger, concorde, etc, 911).

please explain how our inability to thwart a massive earthquake in any way relates to our ability to master the technology we ourselves build. your conclusion seems to be that we should give up our attempts to increase the safety of air travel, since GOD can kill us all at a whim anyhow, and this also seems to lead to the conclusion that there is no point in our trying to improve anything, ever. why try to make our lives safer, when GOD can overrule all our efforts whenever HE pleases? and, according to you, even TRYING to be safer and more advanced is a "misuse" of our intelligence, so all the doctors and scientists of the world should just give up and let us return to the Dark Ages.


The only way mankind can protect itself is by realizing their SELF and connecting to GOD.

Guru
yeah, connecting to GOD through dying horribly without making any effort to protect ourselves! wahoo, go Jebus!

I already told you, he said, "Hey, you can do whatever you want. Im not going to control you. But if you mess up, your going to hell."


if he truly loves us and cares about us then how can he send us to a place of burning and torture? those don't sound like the actions of a supreme being who loves all of his "creations" so either hell doesn't exist or god doesnt'.

What's the difference between your special giraffe and no giraffe at all?

My giraffe exists there is just no way to prove it

During the time of the Roman Empire Christians were rounded up and executed by crucifiction and immolation by Emeror Nero. Even with the threat of execution for even uttering the name of Christ, the books of the Bible and the belief of God survived. How, without some divine aid, did these texts and beliefs stay alive? Near the end of WWII, American troops found the concentration camps. When they arrived the captives came forth and through their tears thanked God for they had been saved. They did not condemn him, but glorified him. How could these events have come to pass without God? A scientist will tell you that nothing happens by chance, there are no coincidences. By chance alone, those texts would not have endured the milleniums. By chance, Hitler messed up enough that the Allied Forces penetrated Germany. Yeah, by chance...I'm so sure.


The texts survived because they were preserved, like many unreligious texts, Hitler lost because it was well known that we has a rubbish strategist to the extent that several assassination attempts were cancelled because if his 2nd in command took over they might win. How could these events have come to pass without a God? How could the holocaust come to pass with a God?

If I lose a game of chess, is it because I was bad at chess (or my opponent was better) or was it an act of God? A scientist may tell you that chance does not exist, but that doesn't mean God does.

Asia Toll Nears 77,000 As Aid Arrives (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041229/ap_on_re_as/quake_tsunami) (AP) - Cargo planes touched down with aid Wednesday, bearing everything from lentils to water purifiers to help survivors facing the threat of epidemic after this week's quake-tsunami catastrophe. The first Indonesian military teams reached the devastated west coast of Sumatra island, finding thousands of bodies and increasing the death toll across 12 nations to nearly 77,000. The international Red Cross warned that the toll could eventually surpass 100,000.


Or does this prove that god does exist and he is punishing these peoples?

Or does this prove that god does exist and he is punishing these peoples?

way to just read the first post

OK, this is really starting from the beginning of the argument, but has anyone exactly addressed why god couldn't be lying? He could be a forthright bastard for all we know. Just because the bible says he isn't doesn't mean anything, if god is indeed a liar. Not that he or she exists, but we'll just assume that for the moment.

Maybe you all have been following a complete jerk.

Cheers,

way to just read the first post


No thankyou but I will not read 35 pages worth of people argueing.

My giraffe exists there is just no way to prove it
Your giraffe is identical to no giraffe, therefore there is no giraffe.

No thankyou but I will not read 35 pages worth of people argueing.

then don't jump in the deep end and make a point that we've been debating for 35 pages.

No thankyou but I will not read 35 pages worth of people argueing.
Clever war child. :)

Your giraffe is identical to no giraffe, therefore there is no giraffe.

it is not identical to no giraffe, because this giraffe exists, unlike a non-existent giraffe which doesn't. If you're arguing over the giraffes existence I think you've missed the point I was trying to make.

it is not identical to no giraffe, because this giraffe exists, unlike a non-existent giraffe which doesn't. If you're arguing over the giraffes existence I think you've missed the point I was trying to make.
If you can't touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it, see it, if it has no interaction with the world around it, it is identical to nothing.

if he truly loves us and cares about us then how can he send us to a place of burning and torture? those don't sound like the actions of a supreme being who loves all of his "creations" so either hell doesn't exist or god doesnt'.

Good question. here is a site that deals very well with explaining the "love me or burn" problem many Non Christians have (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html)

You people haha. You have to understand God has a perfect will and permissive will. God allowed this to happen. He did not ordain, but merely allowed it. God is also a powerful and jealous God, so He allows things to show people the doom that awaits them. He reminds us all that we're only still living because of His grace.

If you can't touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it, see it, if it has no interaction with the world around it, it is identical to nothing.

The giraffe may exist to breed with other similar giraffes, it may interact with similar animals, it may do lots of things there is simply no way to prove or disprove its existence.

The giraffe may exist to breed with other similar giraffes, it may interact with similar animals, it may do lots of things there is simply no way to prove or disprove its existence.
I couldn't beleive in such a giraffe. No evidence. It can't be differentiated from nothing.

Maybe the shift of earth on the ocean bed was required for another species to continue living? Or sometime in the future the result of the shift might help somthing out.

If you can't touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it, see it, if it has no interaction with the world around it, it is identical to nothing.

God may have the first five truths applied to him (at least in this life) but the sixth is not so. He does interact with the world a great deal. The degree to which he interacts and he leaves alone is unclear as we are not Gods. However, there is a clear misunderstanding her. That misunderstanding lies in the two diffrent concepts of "Gods will" and "What God wants to happen". Now both, in terms of language, look alike. But in terms of theology, they are diffrent.

What God wants to happen: God wants many people to come to know him. He wants to be with as many people as he can, and that they will do their best to follow the teachings of his son.

God's will: Gods manipulation of events and circumstances in our world to serve his ultimate plan. Many examples of this in the Bible and in our world EG, when David was on the run from Saul he managed to get the Moabites to keep his parents safe. Why was this? Moab was an enemy of Israel? Surely their response would have been to throw him out. The reason for their help was that David had Moabite blood. His Great Grandmother was Ruth. The Moabitess. Example of God's long term plan to help David.

Obviously helping David wasn't the only reason why God was revealed to Ruth, but the fact that it helped shows how Gods long term plans can work. I dont know if this Earthquake is part of God's plan or not but you must understand the diffrence between "What God Wants" and "God's Will"

I couldn't beleive in such a giraffe. No evidence. It can't be differentiated from nothing.

The giraffe fiasco was me paraphrasing this statement:

There can be situations where there is no evidence for or against something. It's not a contradiction. I can say that there are muslim aliens on a distant planet. You can't provide evidence that they don't exist. I can't provide evidence that they do.

I could say then that I don't believe in your aliens, because there is no evidence. You've managed to contradict yourself

[QUOTE=Neo Cannen]
What God wants to happen: God wants many people to come to know him. He wants to be with as many people as he can, and that they will do their best to follow the teachings of his son.

[.

QUOTE]
Then why doesn't he clearly and unambiguously show himself? It's a better plan than publishing a book riddled with contradictions and untruths.

The giraffe fiasco was me paraphrasing this statement:



I could say then that I don't believe in your aliens, because there is no evidence. You've managed to contradict yourself
My point with the aliens statement is that there can be a situation where there is no evidence for or against something. It was in response to someone, I don't remember who, saying that having no evidence for or agains something was self contradictory.

Then why doesn't he clearly and unambiguously show himself? It's a better plan than publishing a book riddled with contradictions and untruths.

Jesus came to us and revealed himself as the son of God, and we know what happened to him.

My point with the aliens statement is that there can be a situation where there is no evidence for or against something. It was in response to someone, I don't remember who, saying that having no evidence for or agains something was self contradictory.

Precisely, there was no evidence for or against the existence of said giraffe. I was reinforcing your point which somebody misunderstood.

God cares, he just dosen't get himself invovled...Unless your a fundamentalist protestant, then you believe he's intervening every day...

Then why doesn't he clearly and unambiguously show himself? It's a better plan than publishing a book riddled with contradictions and untruths.

I dont know if this is the exact reason the Bible puts across about this but its my logic. If God made himself clear then the following things would happen

1) You wouldnt obey him out of love, but out of fear. The fear of knowing he was everywhere watching.

2) You would take him for granted. Trees themselves are amazing with their photosynthesis and their oxygen manufacturing for us but they are taken for granted.

And just to add to that point, he did come to us and make himself visable (Jesus) and is planning to make himself clear again, at the end (and no one knows when that is yet). Also its our fault that he no longer makes himself clear. See sin at Eden. Sin is so repugnet, so disgusting, such a vile thing that he cannot be close to us in the way he was in Eden. That is one of the reasons why he sent Jesus. To deal with sin so that he and his people can be one again.

Jesus came to us and revealed himself as the son of God, and we know what happened to him.

Funny thing, when I read the synoptic gospels Jesus never once declares himself to be the Son of God

Jesus came to us and revealed himself as the son of God, and we know what happened to him.
Some would say that he never revealed himself as god. Some would say he was crazy. It's not very good proof. People today are delusional and think they are god.

Precisely, there was no evidence for or against the existence of said giraffe. I was reinforcing your point which somebody misunderstood.
screw it then. No point in arguing.

I dont know if this is the exact reason the Bible puts across about this but its my logic. If God made himself clear then the following things would happen

1) You wouldnt obey him out of love, but out of fear. The fear of knowing he was everywhere watching.

2) You would take him for granted. Trees themselves are amazing with their photosynthesis and their oxygon manufacturing for us but they are taken for granted.

And just to add to that point, he did come to us and make himself visable (Jesus) and is planning to make himself clear again, at the end (and no one knows when that is yet). Also its our fault that he no longer makes himself clear. See sin at Eden. Sin is so repugnet, so disgusting, such a vile thing that he cannot be close to us in the way he was in Eden. That is one of the reasons why he sent Jesus. To deal with sin so that he and his people can be one again.
Then how can he blame anyone for not accepting him if he can't provide any evidence?

Funny thing, when I read the synoptic gospels Jesus never once declares himself to be the Son of God

I was half-joking, but I stand corrected

Then how can he blame anyone for not accepting him if he can't provide any evidence?

1) What? Where did I blame people for not accepting him

2) There is evidence in the Bible. It is not complete, it doesnt tell us everything we want to know, just what we need to know. And before you say "who decided what we need to know" God decided. Then you say "but humans wrote the Bible and humans are flawed" I say that the essential message stays constant and that you need faith to appreciate the Bible completely. If you cant accept the Bible because of all the percieved faults, then obvioulsy you dont have enough faith.

Ok, here is my two cents on it, me being an everpreaching reverend of the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic. The articles of Faith (if you can call them that) are bold, the official comments in italic and my stuff just plain.

The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.
To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.

How come that billions of people asked the age-old question of proof of Gods existance and never came to a satisfying result? Why do rabid atheist claim the have the solution when all they have is another form of believe? And why does the other side, be they christians, jews, muslims, whatevers claim they have the answer, because some revered text says so, because it is inspired by God, who in turn has to exist in order for the book to have any value?
All in all God is a metaphor for "I dont know". Some people direly want to understand what is their place in this world, but they reach a point where human understanding no longer holds answers. Maybe there was a creator God and maybe there wasnt. The search for an answer to "How came it all to be" or "What if i die" ultimately is fascinating, but holds no real value.

If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.
All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.

It doesnt matter if God made us, we all are the result of a absurd low probability or aliens created us for whatever reason. It doesnt matter what happens when you die, you will find out soon enough. There is no reason to follow the guidelines and strictures of a religion in order to attain a special status once you are dead. Because in nearly all cases (there are exceptions like the thugee cult etc.) they boil down to: Be a decent chap, have respect of others. A morality that is nearly universal, benefits society during lifetime (which is way more important imho) and does not need any religion behind it. Anyone can be a nice guy (or gal), whatever they may believe otherwise.
And thus follows:

We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.
If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being.

I was half-joking, but I stand corrected

Funny thing about that Jesus, people say he says alot of thing but when you read the accounts of his life...they are just not there...another thing about that Jesus, for the Son of God , he was mistaken about alot of things wasn't he?

1) What? Where did I blame people for not accepting him

2) There is evidence in the Bible. It is not complete, it doesnt tell us everything we want to know, just what we need to know. And before you say "who decided what we need to know" God decided. Then you say "but humans wrote the Bible and humans are flawed" I say that the essential message stays constant and that you need faith to appreciate the Bible completely. If you cant accept the Bible because of all the percieved faults, then obvioulsy you dont have enough faith.
1 What happens to the virtuous non-beleivers? Are they treated as well as the beleivers?

2 The bible sucks as evidence. It contradicts itself and has false statements in it.

Funny thing, when I read the synoptic gospels Jesus never once declares himself to be the Son of God

Matthew 26:63-65 (New International Version)

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

1 What happens to the virtuous non-beleivers? Are they treated as well as the beleivers?


No. You cannot "Work" your way into heaven. The Bible makes that clear. You can be as virtuous as you like. Sin is still sin and repugnent to God. There is no way to "Work" sin off. Only one way to remove sin. Jesus.


2 The bible sucks as evidence. It contradicts itself and has false statements in it.

Care to give examples?

A personal god makes no sense. That's why I think god is impersonal, and synonymous with Nature. An impersonal god doesn't care about things, just operates automatically and randomly.

Funny thing about that Jesus, people say he says alot of thing but when you read the accounts of his life...they are just not there...another thing about that Jesus, for the Son of God , he was mistaken about alot of things wasn't he?

I've always wanted to see some of his carpentry work.

1 What happens to the virtuous non-beleivers? Are they treated as well as the beleivers?

Don't they go to purgatory?

Matthew 26:63-65 (New International Version)

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

Neo , you are being very dishonest...if you read the notes of the NIV you find that most of the earlier manuscripts do not have "Son of God". Why? Because the Jews of the time did not equate the Messiah with the Son of God, so it would make no sense for the High Priest to ask Jesus if he wasThe Messiah, the Son of God because to the Jews of the time the Mesisah is not the Son of God. "Son of God" is a 5th century interpolation

Matthew 26:63-65 (New International Version)

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

Neither King James or Revised Standard or Darby have this. They have the equivalent of: "This is what you said" and not a confirmation.

The Bible is full of contradictions. For instance, James claims that God can't be tempted, but the Gospel of John claims that Jesus is God, and was- what?, let's hear word- TEMPTED by Satan! Deuteronomy and Exodus make points of the immutability of the Torah, and yet, Paul claims that was a "schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ". They can't BOTH be right, now, can they? One of both of these have to be lying. Also Ecclesiastes and Romans have very different ideas about salvation. John claims that Jesus is God, but in Matthew, he rebukes a man for calling him good, saying "No one is good except God".

Neo , you are being very dishonest...if you read the notes of the NIV you find that most of the earlier manuscripts do not have "Son of God". Why? Because the Jews of the time did not equate the Messiah with the Son of God, so it would make no sense for the High Priest to ask Jesus if he wasThe Messiah, the Son of God because to the Jews of the time the Mesisah is not the Son of God. "Son of God" is a 5th century interpolation

He says "Son of Man" all the time, to avoid Blasphemy (except then). While he himself never said it, part of the point of his comming was that he didnt have to. He just did what he did to prove who he was. He did not have to shout about it. And would you like to cite your sources for your claim. I have the NIV, lets see you cite a source for your idea. If we both have sources then its a matter of faith which one you believe.

Just wanted to add another point that doesn't seem to have been covered yet.

Taking on board the existence that God exists then surely in that same sense the Devil exists! Now moving back to the opening thread in regards to the recent earthquake / tsunami disaster. Could this not be the Act of the Devil that has caused so many deaths and that it is now the act of God bringing people together and providing aid ?

We always seem to hear justifications of various disasters as being some part of Gods ultimate plan or as being proof that he does not exist. But if we willing to consider that the Devil played some part in them we can then see the power of God bringing all of us together putting aside our differences to bring aid to those who need it.

No. You cannot "Work" your way into heaven. The Bible makes that clear. You can be as virtuous as you like. Sin is still sin and repugnent to God. There is no way to "Work" sin off. Only one way to remove sin. Jesus.



Care to give examples?
I gave you a link to a list of biblical contradictions. It exists in this thread. As for unequal treatment for beleivers and unbeleivers then god is unjust because he hasn't given nonbeleivers any evidence. They are condemned because they are critical thinkers.

Don't they go to purgatory?

Where is this purgatory thing in the New Testament? Or the Old?

Where is this purgatory thing in the New Testament? Or the Old?

I have no idea, this is just an idea I heard somewhere.

Son of Man does not imply deity. Ezekiel refers to himself as the "Son of Man" all of the time! It's just a generic way for men to refer to themselves in the third person. Also, if Jesus was God, to call himself Son of God would hardly be blasphemous. Incidentally, the only times he is supposed to have claimed deity or sonship are at his trial (which none of the writers attended, so how would they know?) and in John. In other places, he calls himself either the Son of Man or "I".

Also, belief is guesswork. Guessing right is hardly a moral virtue. There is no justice in assigning a punishment or reward (let alone infinite!) on the basis of faith or belief.

He says "Son of Man" all the time, to avoid Blasphemy (except then). While he himself never said it, part of the point of his comming was that he didnt have to. He just did what he did to prove who he was. He did not have to shout about it. And would you like to cite your sources for your claim. I have the NIV, lets see you cite a source for your idea. If we both have sources then its a matter of faith which one you believe.

Are you familiar with Source Criticism, did you know that we can trace back the Gospel of Matthew to three different sources (Matthew itself is a 4th generation account) and those sources give a very different picture than what you are saying. Son of Man is a Messianic claim, its a statement of humaness, literally it is Son of The Human One. In early gnostic sources The Human One is Adam, you know the guy who ate the apple. Jesus is claiming parentage from Adam, which in itself is blaphemous to the Jews because...well...we won't get into that now.

You can neither prove nor deny that God exists.

You can neither prove nor deny that God exists.

you can deny it if you want

You can neither prove nor deny that God exists.
I can deny god exists if you can deny the tooth fairy exists. Neither one shows itself.

you can deny it if you want



But you can't give any supportable evidance that he does. And bashing the other side of the argument doesn't help your case. you can't just prove the other side is wrong, you have to prove that you're side is right.

I have no idea, this is just an idea I heard somewhere.

My point exactly. My understanding is purgatory was invented by Christainity long afer the death Christ. So much of what Christ is blamed for He had nothing to do with.

But you can't give any supportable evidance that he does. And bashing the other side of the argument doesn't help your case. you can't just prove the other side is wrong, you have to prove that you're side is right.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive statement. It's rather hard to prove a negative after all. That's why in court you don't have to prove you didn't commit a crime, the government must prove you did. Therefore, unless evidence is presented supporting the existance of god, it's totally rational to deny it.

But you can't give any supportable evidance that he does. And bashing the other side of the argument doesn't help your case. you can't just prove the other side is wrong, you have to prove that you're side is right.
It isnt bashing a side, it is bashing fundamental lack of a logical structure. Denial is not the opposite of prove, it is an act of faith. A correct version could have been: you cannot prove that God exists or does not exist.

I have quite the file on this little Jesus person everyone is talking about. He once went about the Galilean countryside telling people that the World was going to END in a FEW years, in their lifetime...well that never happened, so what does that make Jesus according to Biblical Law?

I always thought it was funny that Jesus was always portrayed as a white lanky guy. He was by no means either.

As for whether or not 'God' exists or not, it is rather pointless to debate whether or not 'God' exists or not when their are over 20,000 other Gods that are believed in on this Earth. It is that belief which many people relay on and pull strength from. It is their choice to believe what they want, as is their right as a living creature. Why bother to try and sway others to agree with one another? It's much like an over sized commercial, "Ours is Better!"

I do not believe in any 'God'. I trust in myself and my own power as a mortal, and it is the power of mortals that have dictated this Earth for thousands of years. But I also respect others choice to fallow whatever deity they chose.

It isnt bashing a side, it is bashing fundamental lack of a logical structure. Denial is not the opposite of prove, it is an act of faith. A correct version could have been: you cannot prove that God exists or does not exist.

That's what I was getting at

I have quite the file on this little Jesus person everyone is talking about. He once went about the Galilean countryside telling people that the World was going to END in a FEW years, in their lifetime...well that never happened, so what does that make Jesus according to Biblical Law?

It is true that many of the followers of Christ expected Him to return "soon", or the world to end even in their lifetimes. The problem using the above statement as proof that Christ was not honest, divine, or whatever the complaint might be is, that, as many people have all ready pointed out, Christ did not write the New Testament; and it was not written down for hundreds of years after his death. So you really can't complain the New Testmament is inaccuarte and then complain that the statements attributed to Christ are lies or half-truths. You have already told us that the bible is inaccurate, so of course by that standard the statements of Christ are inaccurate.

Also, if we can accept that, for the sake disscussion, Christ did say something about the END times.He may have been speaking in terms of the world the people he was speaking to "knew." If that is the case then most defintenly that world they knew did end. They, the Jewish people were dispursed from their world.

World can have many different meanings. There is my world. There is your world. There is the a virtual world. Certainly you see what I mean. Too often the words of Christ and other Prophets are taken in a very strict literal sense. The "true believes" limit the Prophets to this very strict interpation of words and ignore very obvious meanings. They might believe in the "Rapture" even though it was never taught by Christ.

Read the following from the Baha'i Faith, it might help.

A subject that is essential for the comprehension of the questions that we have mentioned, and of others of which we are about to speak, so that the essence of the problems may be understood, is this: that human knowledge is of two kinds. One is the knowledge of things perceptible to the senses -- that is to say, things which the eye, or ear, or smell, or taste, or touch can perceive, which are called objective or sensible. So the sun, because it can be seen, is said to be objective; and in the same way sounds are sensible because the ear hears them; perfumes are sensible because they can be inhaled and the sense of smell perceives them; foods are sensible because the palate perceives their sweetness, sourness or saltness; heat and cold are sensible because the feelings perceive them. These are said to be sensible realities.

The other kind of human knowledge is intellectual -- that is to say, it is a reality of the intellect; it has no outward form and no place and is not perceptible to the senses. For example, the power of intellect is not sensible; none of the inner qualities of man is a sensible thing; on the contrary, they are intellectual realities. So love is a mental reality and not sensible; for this reality the ear does not hear, the eye does not see, the smell does not perceive, the taste does not discern, the touch does not feel. Even ethereal matter, the forces of which are said in physics to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality, and is not sensible. In the same way, nature, also, in its essence is an intellectual reality and is not sensible; the human spirit is an intellectual, not sensible reality. In explaining these intellectual realities, one is obliged to express them by sensible figures because in exterior existence there is nothing that is not material. Therefore, to explain the reality of the spirit -- its condition, its station -- one is obliged to give explanations under the forms of sensible things because in the external world all that exists is sensible. For example, grief and happiness are intellectual things; when you wish to express those spiritual qualities you say: "My heart is oppressed; my heart is dilated," though the heart of man is neither oppressed nor dilated. This is an intellectual or spiritual state, to explain which you are obliged to have recourse to sensible figures. Another example: you say, "such an individual made great progress," though he is remaining in the same place; or again, "such a one's position was exalted," although, like everyone else, he walks upon the earth. This exaltation and this progress are spiritual states and intellectual realities, but to explain them you are obliged to have recourse to sensible figures because in the exterior world there is nothing that is not sensible.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 81)

The problem using the above statement as proof that Christ was not honest, divine, or whatever the complaint might be is, that, as many people have all ready pointed out, Christ did not write the New Testament; and it was not written down for hundreds of years after his death. So you really can't complain the New Testmament is inaccuarte and then complain that the statements attributed to Christ are lies or half-truths. You have already told us that the bible is inaccurate, so of course by that standard the statements of Christ are inaccurate.

Ok, simple question: How can the Bible be viewed as both, holy and send from God and faulty of human doing?
If we accept that it contains faults, we can not be sure about what is correct and what is not. If we take the point of view that it is God-given from the first to the last letter, there is no place for faults, unless the come from the divine being itself.

Ok, simple question: How can the Bible be viewed as both, holy and send from God and faulty of human doing?
If we accept that it contains faults, we can not be sure about what is correct and what is not. If we take the point of view that it is God-given from the first to the last letter, there is no place for faults, unless the come from the divine being itself.
God works through humans. God's works are done by human hands.

The "faults" are not of God, since he doesn't speak in words but makes intangible communications; like knowledge put directly into the head, and feelings into the heart. The "faults" then can be seen as interpretive and language differences.

Just a thought.

If God is infallible, caring and wants humans to follow his word/concepts/strictures/whatever, how can he bear being translated wrongly? As he is considered omnipotent, what would be the difficulty in having it put down right?

During the time of the Roman Empire Christians were rounded up and executed by crucifiction and immolation by Emeror Nero. Even with the threat of execution for even uttering the name of Christ, the books of the Bible and the belief of God survived. How, without some divine aid, did these texts and beliefs stay alive?


by a man named Constantine. It boggles my mind that christians don't even read up on their own history. And the bible wasn't written in its present form until about 400 C.E. & King James version over 1000 years after that. And if you study up on early christianity you will see that they didn't even agree on what to put in the bible for over a hundred years!


Near the end of WWII, American troops found the concentration camps. When they arrived the captives came forth and through their tears thanked God for they had been saved. They did not condemn him, but glorified him. How could these events have come to pass without God? By chance, Hitler messed up enough that the Allied Forces penetrated Germany. Yeah, by chance...I'm so sure.

20 million died during the holocaust. 30 million died during Stalin's holocaust. If GOD was responsible for the few hundred thousand that survived then he is just as responsible for the 50 million deaths. Hitler "messed up" by attacking Russia and opening up a two front war. I doubt very much god commanded him to attack Russia so he could lose the war. Hitler was just nuts.


A scientist will tell you that nothing happens by chance, there are no coincidences. By chance alone, those texts would not have endured the milleniums.
Actually, things can happen by chance. It's called probability. And the probability was in favor of christianity because of the demagogs who scared everyone with the prospect of hell and kept an iron grip on people's lives for many many years.

Ok, simple question: How can the Bible be viewed as both, holy and send from God and faulty of human doing?
If we accept that it contains faults, we can not be sure about what is correct and what is not. If we take the point of view that it is God-given from the first to the last letter, there is no place for faults, unless the come from the divine being itself.

The books of the Bible, and other religions were writen down years after the Prophet spoke the words. There are problems with translation, meaning of words have changed over time etc. This does not mean that the Books did not come originally from God or that they were some fraud, but that it was the best attempt to preserve the words of God that could be accomplished at that time with the tools available at that time.

Scientist look at bones and make decisions about evolution or other aspect of science based upon what they know to be true at time. When new evidence is found the scientist will over time change the body of knowledge to reflect the new information.

When God sends messenagers to humanity, humanity has a certain capacity. As humanity matures and develops and as the old religion becomes corrupt a new Messenger is sent (Moses, Christ, Mohammed, today Baha'u'llah there are others). Each Messenger or Prophet or Mouth of God brings a message that is meant for those people at time. This is called Progressive Revelation because each religion is related to the other and builds upon the prevouis religion.

God works through humans. God's works are done by human hands.

There is no evidence to support your theory. There is just as much validity in me saying that aliens work through humans. That aliens' work are done by human hands. Maybe god is actually an ET? Do you have proof that we aren't a test-tube species created by an alien race who wanted to see how we evolved?
That idea is just as valid as the existence of a god.

When God sends messenagers to humanity, humanity has a certain capacity. As humanity matures and develops and as the old religion becomes corrupt a new Messenger is sent (Moses, Christ, Mohammed, today Baha'u'llah there are others). Each Messenger or Prophet or Mouth of God brings a message that is meant for those people at time. This is called Progressive Revelation because each religion is related to the other and builds upon the prevouis religion.
And then condemns the previous religion as heathenistic. Happened with pagans and jews, pagans and christians, christians and jews, muslims with jews AND christians, catholics and protestants, and recently muslims with jews AND christians AGAIN.
I call that regressive revelation personally.

How about you stop trying to force atheism down people's throats?

How about you stop trying to force atheism down people's throats?
Yes. Stop forcing it down people's throats. Start forcing it into their brains.

When God sends messenagers to humanity, humanity has a certain capacity. As humanity matures and develops and as the old religion becomes corrupt a new Messenger is sent (Moses, Christ, Mohammed, today Baha'u'llah there are others). Each Messenger or Prophet or Mouth of God brings a message that is meant for those people at time. This is called Progressive Revelation because each religion is related to the other and builds upon the prevouis religion.

Sorry, i have to quote myself: "If God is infallible, caring and wants humans to follow his word/concepts/strictures/whatever, how can he bear being translated wrongly? As he is considered omnipotent, what would be the difficulty in having it put down right?"
Following your thought, that could mean that a whole bunch of people get denied entrance to heaven because they all adhered to a faulty translation and not really Gods intentions. "Too bad, guys, down to Hell with you, but Matthew had it wrong..."

How about you stop trying to force atheism down people's throats?
Did i in any way force you to accept a viewpoint that is not yours?

Did i in any way force you to accept a viewpoint that is not yours?
No, you don't get it. If a theist proclaims the word of his god ad nauseum to you it's OK. He's doing his duty. If you try to defend your way of thinking it's ramming atheism down someone's throat.

How about you stop trying to force atheism down people's throats?
I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. And I'm arguing against religion because it IS without a doubt man-made. If I said god was without a doubt man-made (a distinct possibility but not without a doubt) then I would be an atheist.

If God is infallible, caring and wants humans to follow his word/concepts/strictures/whatever, how can he bear being translated wrongly? As he is considered omnipotent, what would be the difficulty in having it put down right?
Maybe it is written down right. Just not by Christians. ;-)

How about you stop trying to force atheism down people's throats?

I'll stop trying to get people to think for themselves by giving up this archaic belief in a god once the christians stop trying to impose their "morality" on everyone ( if one could actually call that garbage...moral)...is that a deal?

Even worse, i am no bloody atheist. I happen to be a ordained reverend of the UCTAA.

Even worse, i am no bloody atheist. I happen to be a ordained reverend of the UCTAA.
What's the UCTAA?

What's the UCTAA?
The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (http://apatheticagnostic.com/index.html)

The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (http://apatheticagnostic.com/index.html)
Very nice.

Read the following from the Baha'i Faith, it might help.

A subject that is essential for the comprehension of the questions that we have mentioned, and of others of which we are about to speak, so that the essence of the problems may be understood, is this: that human knowledge is of two kinds. One is the knowledge of things perceptible to the senses -- that is to say, things which the eye, or ear, or smell, or taste, or touch can perceive, which are called objective or sensible. So the sun, because it can be seen, is said to be objective; and in the same way sounds are sensible because the ear hears them; perfumes are sensible because they can be inhaled and the sense of smell perceives them; foods are sensible because the palate perceives their sweetness, sourness or saltness; heat and cold are sensible because the feelings perceive them. These are said to be sensible realities.

The other kind of human knowledge is intellectual -- that is to say, it is a reality of the intellect; it has no outward form and no place and is not perceptible to the senses. For example, the power of intellect is not sensible; none of the inner qualities of man is a sensible thing; on the contrary, they are intellectual realities. So love is a mental reality and not sensible; for this reality the ear does not hear, the eye does not see, the smell does not perceive, the taste does not discern, the touch does not feel. Even ethereal matter, the forces of which are said in physics to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality, and is not sensible. In the same way, nature, also, in its essence is an intellectual reality and is not sensible; the human spirit is an intellectual, not sensible reality. In explaining these intellectual realities, one is obliged to express them by sensible figures because in exterior existence there is nothing that is not material. Therefore, to explain the reality of the spirit -- its condition, its station -- one is obliged to give explanations under the forms of sensible things because in the external world all that exists is sensible. For example, grief and happiness are intellectual things; when you wish to express those spiritual qualities you say: "My heart is oppressed; my heart is dilated," though the heart of man is neither oppressed nor dilated. This is an intellectual or spiritual state, to explain which you are obliged to have recourse to sensible figures. Another example: you say, "such an individual made great progress," though he is remaining in the same place; or again, "such a one's position was exalted," although, like everyone else, he walks upon the earth. This exaltation and this progress are spiritual states and intellectual realities, but to explain them you are obliged to have recourse to sensible figures because in the exterior world there is nothing that is not sensible.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 81)
This explains very well concepts I have tried to put forth in other threads but unsuccessfully. I think I'll copy it and paste it in when I need to explain again about 'objective things' and 'subjective things'.

Maybe it is written down right. Just not by Christians. ;-)
All religions throughout history were created by man. christans will argue that their religion was started by a divine entity (this in itself is debatable) but if you read up on early christian history, you will find that christianity is more influenced by peter and paul and the priests/popes of the 5th century C.E. than jesus. And the gospels themselves weren't written by their namesakes but by followers of mathew, mark, luke and john (john was written over 100 years after the death of jesus) so those manuscripts aren't even primary sources or first hand accounts!

And then condemns the previous religion as heathenistic. Happened with pagans and jews, pagans and christians, christians and jews, muslims with jews AND christians, catholics and protestants, and recently muslims with jews AND christians AGAIN.
I call that regressive revelation personally.

The teachings of Baha'u'llah clearly state that all the Revealed religions have come from God. There is no place for prejudice of anykind in the Baha'i Faith.
And today Christ has returned, and Mohammed. The Promised One of All Time. The Glory of God. This is a new age. A new day.
"This is the changeless Voice of God Eternal in the Past; Eternal in the Future."

1. O SON OF SPIRIT!
My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting.

2. O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.

(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

The teachings of Baha'u'llah clearly state that all the Revealed religions have come from God. There is no place for prejudice of anykind in the Baha'i Faith.
And today Christ has returned, and Mohammed. The Promised One of All Time. The Glory of God. This is a new age. A new day."

Well, we are now (according to astrology) in the age of the aquarius so I suppose it is a "new age". But then 9/11 happened so I doubt very much we're in an age of peace, love and harmony. And muslims are still blowing themselves up in Israel and Iraq in the name of allah.

All religions throughout history were created by man. christans will argue that their religion was started by a divine entity (this in itself is debatable) but if you read up on early christian history, you will find that christianity is more influenced by peter and paul and the priests/popes of the 5th century C.E. than jesus. And the gospels themselves weren't written by their namesakes but by followers of mathew, mark, luke and john (john was written over 100 years after the death of jesus) so those manuscripts aren't even primary sources or first hand accounts!
You would think that as new religions come along each would be more mature, having learned from the ones that came before. Instead they seem --from the time of Paul to the modern day --to be getting more and more material and abandoning the spiritual side in favour of a "real" god with a physical presence in the world. I cannot fault the skeptics for demanding proof of such a god.

Well, we are now (according to astrology) in the age of the aquarius so I suppose it is a "new age". But then 9/11 happened so I doubt very much we're in an age of peace, love and harmony. And muslims are still blowing themselves up in Israel and Iraq in the name of allah.

The Dawn of a age breaks very slowy. Those who are on the highest Mts. of hope can see the first sliver of light before someone in the deepest canyon of despair. An avalance starts very slowly before it picks up overwhelming speed. Those who are asleep don't notice the dawning when it comes.

You would think that as new religions come along each would be more mature, having learned from the ones that came before. Instead they seem --from the time of Paul to the modern day --to be getting more and more material and abandoning the spiritual side in favour of a "real" god with a physical presence in the world. I cannot fault the skeptics for demanding proof of such a god.

Seek the Pure Voice of God on the Mountain of Carmel.

Well, we are now (according to astrology) in the age of the aquarius so I suppose it is a "new age". But then 9/11 happened so I doubt very much we're in an age of peace, love and harmony. And muslims are still blowing themselves up in Israel and Iraq in the name of allah.
Actually, we're still in the Age of Pisces. The Age of Aquarius begins approximately 2060 A.D. (http://www.accessnewage.com/articles/astro/ageaq1.htm) Not that it's relevant, I just had to throw that in there. ;)

Seek the Pure Voice of God on the Mountain of Carmel.
Mmm.... carmel.

I have to go and prepare a gathering of Baha'i friends. But this is the Truth. Here is a link:http://www.manvell.org.uk/ that has lots of very good stuff. Then I am gone most of the weekend to Pierre SD for a meeting with other Baha'is

I've only skimmed this bit, but it seems that the people who criticize "God" the most (especially the opening gambit) seem to think that the Biblical God is some sort of dope-smoking hippy on a mission to get everyone loved-up. Benevolent God? Eh? Since when? He drowned almost the entire population of the planet once before and did a fair share of smiting since then too, I'll have you all know!

Seriously though, looking at a disaster and saying "How can God let this happen?" is a bit of a naive teeny thing to say really isn't it? Largely it's said by people who usually don't believe in God until it's convenient. Me, I believe that there can't not be a God, because I don't think the universe and Fate on their own can have that good a sense of humour. Plus, religion and global terror keep the population in check. So maybe we need these atrocities now and then to give us a spiritual reality check while we sit at our PCs behind double-glazed windows with a fluffy carpet underfoot and a central heating system warming our toesies.

Right, I'm off to go dry the dishes. I'll try not to drop any (tectonic) plates, just in case there's no God, it's all Chaos Theory, and... well... you know the rest, yeah?

Actually, we're still in the Age of Pisces. The Age of Aquarius begins approximately 2060 A.D. (http://www.accessnewage.com/articles/astro/ageaq1.htm) Not that it's relevant, I just had to throw that in there. ;)

This show's just how much I know about astrology. :rolleyes: Thanks for correcting me :p

Hey guys. Yeah, I'm a christian. Thats a thing I'm proud of though. I may not be a scholar, or as smart as some of these people that have posted previous to me, but I know through faith that my Lord and God is real, he's done wonderful things for me many times, and taught me some good lessons along the way. I'm not a christian because of the matirial things.. I'm in it because I love my Lord. Like many people said, and I'll agree with it, most people are in it for the matirial things, and the just to be safe sort of thinking, but thats the wrong way to be, if you're gonna do it, do it because you want to, not just because you wanna look good. Aethists are aethists because they wanna be, and I don't have any ill will twords aethists, one of my best freinds is an Aethists and thats his choice, but he will always be my best freind. Well, I'm sorry for ramblin' on. You guys have a good one, y'hear?

Good Ol' Southern Boy :sniper:

Hey guys. Yeah, I'm a christian. Thats a thing I'm proud of though. I may not be a scholar, or as smart as some of these people that have posted previous to me, but I know through faith that my Lord and God is real, he's done wonderful things for me many times, and taught me some good lessons along the way. I'm not a christian because of the matirial things.. I'm in it because I love my Lord. Like many people said, and I'll agree with it, most people are in it for the matirial things, and the just to be safe sort of thinking, but thats the wrong way to be, if you're gonna do it, do it because you want to, not just because you wanna look good. Aethists are aethists because they wanna be, and I don't have any ill will twords aethists, one of my best freinds is an Aethists and thats his choice, but he will always be my best freind. Well, I'm sorry for ramblin' on. You guys have a good one, y'hear?

Good Ol' Southern Boy :sniper:

And I can respect this. Your faith is "proof" enough for you but isn't for me. Thanks for not being preachy. Good day to you as well. :)

Hey guys. Yeah, I'm a christian. Thats a thing I'm proud of though. I may not be a scholar, or as smart as some of these people that have posted previous to me, but I know through faith that my Lord and God is real, he's done wonderful things for me many times, and taught me some good lessons along the way. I'm not a christian because of the matirial things.. I'm in it because I love my Lord. Like many people said, and I'll agree with it, most people are in it for the matirial things, and the just to be safe sort of thinking, but thats the wrong way to be, if you're gonna do it, do it because you want to, not just because you wanna look good. Aethists are aethists because they wanna be, and I don't have any ill will twords aethists, one of my best freinds is an Aethists and thats his choice, but he will always be my best freind. Well, I'm sorry for ramblin' on. You guys have a good one, y'hear?

Good Ol' Southern Boy :sniper:
One cannot know through faith. Only beleive through faith. Good post otherwise.

Well, we are now (according to astrology) in the age of the aquarius so I suppose it is a "new age". But then 9/11 happened so I doubt very much we're in an age of peace, love and harmony. And muslims are still blowing themselves up in Israel and Iraq in the name of allah.

I have a large family, very large family with many cousins, etc. Now some members of this family are very nice people and some are not so nice. Is it fair to blame me for what my family has done?

I have a large family, very large family with many cousins, etc. Now some members of this family are very nice people and some are not so nice. Is it fair to blame me for what my family has done?

No. But it would be fair to say that not everyone in your family is nice and that was the point I was making ;) I did not blame all muslims (as they aren't all blowing themselves up) just the fundamentalists.

No. But it would be fair to say that not everyone in your family is nice and that was the point I was making ;)

Thanks for the kind worlds. The point I was trying to make is that we often blame God for what his followers do in the name of God.

Thanks for the kind worlds. The point I was trying to make is that we often blame God for what his followers do in the name of God.
Nope, I never blamed god. Why blame something that may or may not exist? What *does* exist is Man. Add some religion and fanaticism with a dash of ignorance to the equation and what you've got is a volatile combination. That goes for any religion not just Islam.

Nope, I never blamed god. Why blame something that may or may not exist? What *does* exist is Man. Add some religion and fanaticism with a dash of ignorance to the equation and what you've got is a volatile combination. That goes for any religion not just Islam.

This was written during WWI but it seems appropriate for this day.

O ye dear friends! The world is at war and the human race is in travail and mortal combat. The dark night of hate hath taken over, and the light of good faith is blotted out. The peoples and kindreds of the earth have sharpened their claws, and are hurling themselves one against the other. It is the very foundation of the human race that is being destroyed. It is thousands of households that are vagrant and dispossessed, and every year seeth thousands upon thousands of human beings weltering in their life-blood on dusty battlefields. The tents of life and joy are down. The generals practise their generalship, boasting of the blood they shed, competing one with the next in inciting to violence. 'With this sword,' saith one of them, 'I beheaded a people!' And another: 'I toppled a nation to the ground!' And yet another: 'I brought a government down!' On such things do men pride themselves, in such do they glory! Love -- righteousness -- these are everywhere censured, while despised are harmony, and devotion to the truth

(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 1)

This was written during WWI but it seems appropriate for this day.

O ye dear friends! The world is at war and the human race is in travail and mortal combat. The dark night of hate hath taken over, and the light of good faith is blotted out. The peoples and kindreds of the earth have sharpened their claws, and are hurling themselves one against the other. It is the very foundation of the human race that is being destroyed. It is thousands of households that are vagrant and dispossessed, and every year seeth thousands upon thousands of human beings weltering in their life-blood on dusty battlefields. The tents of life and joy are down. The generals practise their generalship, boasting of the blood they shed, competing one with the next in inciting to violence. 'With this sword,' saith one of them, 'I beheaded a people!' And another: 'I toppled a nation to the ground!' And yet another: 'I brought a government down!' On such things do men pride themselves, in such do they glory! Love -- righteousness -- these are everywhere censured, while despised are harmony, and devotion to the truth
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 1)
I agree, this does apply to today as it did then. Just as it applied to 300 years ago, to 1000 years ago, to 2000 years ago, to basically any time that humanids have walked the earth. The first humanids created tools to hunt and defend themselves from other humanids. That tool was the stone/bone axe. We use the same thing today except it is in the form of rockets and morter shells.

I've only skimmed this bit, but it seems that the people who criticize "God" the most (especially the opening gambit) seem to think that the Biblical God is some sort of dope-smoking hippy on a mission to get everyone loved-up. Benevolent God? Eh? Since when? He drowned almost the entire population of the planet once before and did a fair share of smiting since then too, I'll have you all know!

Seriously though, looking at a disaster and saying "How can God let this happen?" is a bit of a naive teeny thing to say really isn't it? Largely it's said by people who usually don't believe in God until it's convenient. Me, I believe that there can't not be a God, because I don't think the universe and Fate on their own can have that good a sense of humour. Plus, religion and global terror keep the population in check. So maybe we need these atrocities now and then to give us a spiritual reality check while we sit at our PCs behind double-glazed windows with a fluffy carpet underfoot and a central heating system warming our toesies.

Right, I'm off to go dry the dishes. I'll try not to drop any (tectonic) plates, just in case there's no God, it's all Chaos Theory, and... well... you know the rest, yeah?

Your god seriously sucks. Why bother worshipping a god that's out to kill you . . . suck up. Ohhh, and you're defending him by saying we need to have people killed every now and then. If he REALLY wanted people to have a spiritual check, he'd just send someone down with crazy ass powers to change the world. I'm sure that's possible, AND no one has to die.

Your god seriously sucks. Why bother worshipping a god that's out to kill you . . . suck up. Ohhh, and you're defending him by saying we need to have people killed every now and then. If he REALLY wanted people to have a spiritual check, he'd just send someone down with crazy ass powers to change the world. I'm sure that's possible, AND no one has to die.
my whole conundrum stems from this question: why would a superior being demand worship from inferior beings when it doesn't benefit the superior being to do so? And it's not like this superior being gives you much choice if it's the christian god. Either you worship him or you burn in hell-there is NO middle ground or compromise. That's like demanding ants to worship you and when they don't you step on them. If the christian god was omnibenevolent (all loving) then there wouldn't *be* a hell. And if this god isn't omnibenevolent why even worship him other than to NOT get stepped on? Let's take it a step further and ask if this god is even WORTH worshipping?

my whole conundrum stems from this question: why would a superior being demand worship from inferior beings when it doesn't benefit the superior being to do so? And it's not like this superior being gives you much choice if it's the christian god. Either you worship him or you burn in hell-there is NO middle ground or compromise. That's like demanding ants to worship you and when they don't you step on them. If the christian god was omnibenevolent (all loving) then there wouldn't *be* a hell. And if this god isn't omnibenevolent why even worship him other than to NOT get stepped on? Let's take it a step further and ask if this god is even WORTH worshipping?

I don't really recognize the God you are talking about: it's not the One I know. Maybe we need to determine who's God this is before discussing Him...


Ge-Ren

I din't real,y recognize the God you are talking about: it's not the One I know. Maybe we need to determine who's God this is before discussing Him...
Ge-Ren

the christian god. If you believe in the bible then you believe this line :

I am the way; I am am Truth and Life. Noone can come to the Father except through me.
-John 14:6


and


And all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.
-Acts 2:21


So if we don't do either we aren't "saved?". Thus the conundrum above.

This was a quote, but for some reason is not showing up as one. Don't know what I did wrong. _________________________________________________________________And why does the other side, be they christians, jews, muslims, whatevers claim they have the answer, because some revered text says so, because it is inspired by God, who in turn has to exist in order for the book to have any value?
_________________________________________________________________

Hang on a minute! When have people (as a general rule) EVER followed anything just because we were told to? Even when we're told the reasons behind things, like stop signs, we still push the limits. Does anyone stop swearing becaue their mother tells them to? I know for sure I didn't.

For those that beilve in God, it has a lot less to do with what the book tells us, and a lot more to do with how we feel. I could tell you all the miracle stories I wanted, but unless I could make you feel how I feel about it all, I will never convince anyone it's not just coincedence and good luck. For those who know, it's because we feel it. For those who don't know, or beileve it doesn't exist, I'm truly sorry.

Just had a discusion with an jehovah`s witness about this, and he argued the point that God isnt in control of the earth but is ruled by the Devil himself, hence the terrible loss of life! i argued the point that the creation of the earth was random and the fault lines prove the earth wasn`t dreated by God.

Just had a discusion with an jehovah`s witness about this, and he argued the point that God isnt in control of the earth but is ruled by the Devil himself, hence the terrible loss of life! i argued the point that the creation of the earth was random and the fault lines prove the earth wasn`t dreated by God.
Mythologically, this makes sense. The devil was cast down from heaven to earth after the great battle there, so this is now his domain. I wouldn't go so far as to say he "rules" it --more like "owns" it in the modern slang.

But more importantly, I am really curious to know how fault lines prove that Earth was not created by god. What's that about?

Just had a discusion with an jehovah`s witness about this, and he argued the point that God isnt in control of the earth but is ruled by the Devil himself, hence the terrible loss of life! i argued the point that the creation of the earth was random and the fault lines prove the earth wasn`t dreated by God.

you probably caught him off guard by inviting him in

But more importantly, I am really curious to know how fault lines prove that Earth was not created by god. What's that about?

well...the way i see it, if god wanted earth to be a utopian paradise he wouldn`t have made it imperfect, would he?

well...the way i see it, if god wanted earth to be a utopian paradise he wouldn`t have made it imperfect, would he?
The utopian paradise god made was the Garden of Eden.

"Fault" lines are not imperfections; they are cracks between continental plates.

I just have a few comments on the "God doesn't exist" deal. First of all, :rolleyes: WHATEVER! If GOD doesn't exist, where did the world and all other planets, galaxies, etc. come from? DON'T GIVE ME THE "EVOLUTION" BULLCRAP AS A REASON PLEASE! :headbang: To believe we EVOLVED is just crazy, if you'll pardon me for saying so. Anyway, I digress. This terrible event, and many others prove that God DOES exist, not that he DOESN'T. Why do I think that? Well, first of all, there is evil in the world thanks to none other than Satan, the Devil, Lucifer. Evil things happen because of him NOT GOD. I believe God exists because I personally have witnessed the power of His miracles. 'Nuff said.

my whole conundrum stems from this question: why would a superior being demand worship from inferior beings when it doesn't benefit the superior being to do so? And it's not like this superior being gives you much choice if it's the christian god. Either you worship him or you burn in hell-there is NO middle ground or compromise. That's like demanding ants to worship you and when they don't you step on them. If the christian god was omnibenevolent (all loving) then there wouldn't *be* a hell. And if this god isn't omnibenevolent why even worship him other than to NOT get stepped on? Let's take it a step further and ask if this god is even WORTH worshipping?


This question assumes there is a God. One proof of God is the human soul. Please read the following from the Baha'i Faith.

The logical proof of the immortality of the spirit is this, that no sign can come from a nonexisting thing -- that is to say, it is impossible that from absolute nonexistence signs should appear -- for the signs are the consequence of an existence, and the consequence depends upon the existence of the principle. So from a nonexisting sun no light can radiate; from a nonexisting sea no waves appear; from a nonexisting cloud no rain falls; a nonexisting tree yields no fruit; a nonexisting man neither manifests nor produces anything. Therefore, as long as signs of existence appear, they are a proof that the possessor of the sign is existent.

Consider that today the Kingdom of Christ exists. From a nonexisting king how could such a great kingdom be manifested? How, from a nonexisting sea, can the waves mount so high? From a nonexisting garden, how can such fragrant breezes be wafted? Reflect that no effect, no trace, no influence remains of any being after its members are dispersed and its elements are decomposed, whether it be a mineral, a vegetable or an animal. There is only the human reality and the spirit of man which, after the disintegration of the members, dispersing of the particles, and the destruction of the composition, persists and continues to act and to have power.

This question is extremely subtle: consider it attentively. This is a rational proof which we are giving, so that the wise may weigh it in the balance of reason and justice. But if the human spirit will rejoice and be attracted to the Kingdom of God, if the inner sight becomes opened, and the spiritual hearing strengthened, and the spiritual feelings predominant, he will see the immortality of the spirit as clearly as he sees the sun, and the glad tidings and signs of God will encompass him.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 225)

I just have a few comments on the "God doesn't exist" deal. First of all, :rolleyes: WHATEVER! If GOD doesn't exist, where did the world and all other planets, galaxies, etc. come from? DON'T GIVE ME THE "EVOLUTION" BULLCRAP AS A REASON PLEASE! :headbang: To believe we EVOLVED is just crazy, if you'll pardon me for saying so. Anyway, I digress. This terrible event, and many others prove that God DOES exist, not that he DOESN'T. Why do I think that? Well, first of all, there is evil in the world thanks to none other than Satan, the Devil, Lucifer. Evil things happen because of him NOT GOD. I believe God exists because I personally have witnessed the power of His miracles. 'Nuff said.
Ok, apparently you don't have much of a background in science. If I'm wrong please forgive me.
1 Where did the universe come from? Well, there are some interesting ideas. The big bang theory is one that most are familiar with. Brane theory is a weird one. There are others. The short answer is that at this time we don't know, but that doesn't mean we should stop looking and settle on the non-scientific idea that some guy named god created it. It's like losing your wallet, not knowing how you managed to lose it and concluding that god must have borrowed it rather than looking around.
2 It's much less crazy to beleive we evolved from more primitive animals than it is to beleive that we were created as is. There is too much evidence pointing to evolution. For instance, we have a pretty good fossil record for hominids which shows what you would expect from evolution. As the remains become younger they resemble modern humans more and more. Also we have the genetic similarities between humans and apes. The fact that mitochondria, little organelles in the cells of every multicellular organism that contain DNA. Yet that DNA is not used for reproduction. The best explanation for why it's there is that mitochondria are evidence of a symbiotic relationship between two single celled creatures who's offspring evolved into the multicellular organisms we have today.

The logical proof of the immortality of the spirit is this, that no sign can come from a nonexisting thing -- that is to say, it is impossible that from absolute nonexistence signs should appear -- for the signs are the consequence of an existence, and the consequence depends upon the existence of the principle. So from a nonexisting sun no light can radiate; from a nonexisting sea no waves appear; from a nonexisting cloud no rain falls; a nonexisting tree yields no fruit; a nonexisting man neither manifests nor produces anything. Therefore, as long as signs of existence appear, they are a proof that the possessor of the sign is existent.
The 'proof' offered is rational, but unfortunately not logical. When I first read this, I read it in a light that would make it sensible, but reading further I realised that the "signs" the author speaks of are signs of the existence of God; I read it as signs of the existence of human consciousness. Now, for me, since god (the god symbol) is a concept of human consciousness, it makes sense, but I fear the author is offering up another explanation.

First, the logical part: Clouds produce rain; where there are no clouds there can be no rain from clouds. This however cannot prove that where there is rain there are clouds, since clouds are not the only possible source of precipitation. Rain is but evidence that indicates a high probability of clouds, just as the signs mentioned are an indicator of God, not proof of God.

Secondly: What are signs? What makes something seen and interpreted as significant have significance? To me, the answer is plain: it is the observer, the witness, who impresses the significance of a sign onto what is observed by adopting a participatory perspective with what is observed. For instance, the case of a person who sees a black cat crossing the street: to those who do not participate in signs, it is nothing more than a black cat crossing the street. In order for the sign to be a sign, to have some meaning, the observer must assign it meaning to it, and for him (it can have meaning for no one but him when he assigns its meaning, because the process is done entirely subjectively).

This process of assigning meaning to a sign creates a relationship between the subject (man) and the object (cat). The relationship is defined by the meaning it (the object) has for him (the subject); only the man's consciousness participates in this process. The cat remains blissfully unaware that it has any significance to the man, as do other observers.

When a man sees something that strikes him as significant, it is significant to him because he saw it and gave it significance. Its significance comes from man, the observer, not from the sign itself. Therefore, signs are evidence of human consciousness at work, specifically the "magical" part human consciousness that allows for the creation of such relationships.

Feel free to comment if I misread what the author's point was.

This is all monumentally stupid. The whole Bahai business of "Christianity is wrong about its claims to be exclusive truth, but it still comes from God" is BS. Look, a religion that falsely claims to be the one true faith can hardly be from a benevolent God, particularly given its tendency to murder and massacre its enemies. Christianity basically started anti-Semitism. Christianity punished people like Galileo for speaking their mind and showing new ideas. Christianity persecutes "heresy" within its own ranks. Christianity discourages independent, rational, scientific thought. Christianity encourages blaming groups instead of individuals, flouting Nature, and propping up tyrants by urging people to obey them anyway. Christianity has moved further away from the original teachings of Jesus with each century. Christianity basically told slaves to obey their masters and forbade women to be clergy. Christianity wishes to ram its morality down people's throats through legislation, and always has done so. The gay marriage issue is just one example. Christianity would rather have millions die of AIDS rather than pass out a single condom.

I respect freedom of religion, but let's not pretend that this malevolent faith is from Almighty God.

"Then, why do you alter the Law to suit yourselves? In a thousand ways, you have perverted not only Moses, but the Nazarene, and you have done so ever since the blasphemous Paul of Tarsus said 'Christ is the end of the Law'. You are neither Hebrew nor Galilean but opportunists!" from Gore Vidal's Julian

The 'proof' offered is rational, but unfortunately not logical. When I first read this, I read it in a light that would make it sensible, but reading further I realised that the "signs" the author speaks of are signs of the existence of God; I read it as signs of the existence of human consciousness. Now, for me, since god (the god symbol) is a concept of human consciousness, it makes sense, but I fear the author is offering up another explanation.

First, the logical part: Clouds produce rain; where there are no clouds there can be no rain from clouds. This however cannot prove that where there is rain there are clouds, since clouds are not the only possible source of precipitation. Rain is but evidence that indicates a high probability of clouds, just as the signs mentioned are an indicator of God, not proof of God.

Secondly: What are signs? What makes something seen and interpreted as significant have significance? To me, the answer is plain: it is the observer, the witness, who impresses the significance of a sign onto what is observed by adopting a participatory perspective with what is observed. For instance, the case of a person who sees a black cat crossing the street: to those who do not participate in signs, it is nothing more than a black cat crossing the street. In order for the sign to be a sign, to have some meaning, the observer must assign it meaning to it, and for him (it can have meaning for no one but him when he assigns its meaning, because the process is done entirely subjectively).

This process of assigning meaning to a sign creates a relationship between the subject (man) and the object (cat). The relationship is defined by the meaning it (the object) has for him (the subject); only the man's consciousness participates in this process. The cat remains blissfully unaware that it has any significance to the man, as do other observers.

When a man sees something that strikes him as significant, it is significant to him because he saw it and gave it significance. Its significance comes from man, the observer, not from the sign itself. Therefore, signs are evidence of human consciousness at work, specifically the "magical" part human consciousness that allows for the creation of such relationships.

Feel free to comment if I misread what the author's point was.

There is much more in the Baha'i Faith and it would be difficult to try to share even a small part of here. You can find the whole quote and many others by going to this site that has much of the Baha'i Writings www.planetbahai.org/

This is all monumentally stupid. The whole Bahai business of "Christianity is wrong about its claims to be exclusive truth, but it still comes from God" is BS. Look, a religion that falsely claims to be the one true faith can hardly be from a benevolent God, particularly given its tendency to murder and massacre its enemies. Christianity basically started anti-Semitism. Christianity punished people like Galileo for speaking their mind and showing new ideas. Christianity persecutes "heresy" within its own ranks. Christianity discourages independent, rational, scientific thought. Christianity encourages blaming groups instead of individuals, flouting Nature, and propping up tyrants by urging people to obey them anyway. Christianity has moved further away from the original teachings of Jesus with each century. Christianity basically told slaves to obey their masters and forbade women to be clergy. Christianity wishes to ram its morality down people's throats through legislation, and always has done so. The gay marriage issue is just one example. Christianity would rather have millions die of AIDS rather than pass out a single condom.

I respect freedom of religion, but let's not pretend that this malevolent faith is from Almighty God.

"Then, why do you alter the Law to suit yourselves? In a thousand ways, you have perverted not only Moses, but the Nazarene, and you have done so ever since the blasphemous Paul of Tarsus said 'Christ is the end of the Law'. You are neither Hebrew nor Galilean but opportunists!" from Gore Vidal's Julian
Baha'i tends to think the good peacefull stuff from religions comes from god. The angry stuff is a flaw added by man. Baha'i is actually a very benign religion emphasizing equality of sex and race. They seem to like everybody, but Iran doesn't like them. Go figure.

This is all monumentally stupid. The whole Bahai business of "Christianity is wrong about its claims to be exclusive truth, but it still comes from God" is BS. Look, a religion that falsely claims to be the one true faith can hardly be from a benevolent God, particularly given its tendency to murder and massacre its enemies. Christianity basically started anti-Semitism. Christianity punished people like Galileo for speaking their mind and showing new ideas. Christianity persecutes "heresy" within its own ranks. Christianity discourages independent, rational, scientific thought. Christianity encourages blaming groups instead of individuals, flouting Nature, and propping up tyrants by urging people to obey them anyway. Christianity has moved further away from the original teachings of Jesus with each century. Christianity basically told slaves to obey their masters and forbade women to be clergy. Christianity wishes to ram its morality down people's throats through legislation, and always has done so. The gay marriage issue is just one example. Christianity would rather have millions die of AIDS rather than pass out a single condom.

I respect freedom of religion, but let's not pretend that this malevolent faith is from Almighty God.

"Then, why do you alter the Law to suit yourselves? In a thousand ways, you have perverted not only Moses, but the Nazarene, and you have done so ever since the blasphemous Paul of Tarsus said 'Christ is the end of the Law'. You are neither Hebrew nor Galilean but opportunists!" from Gore Vidal's Julian

I find nothing from the quote by Gore Vidal to object to. The revelation of God never ends it contines with new Messengers every few thousand years. The former followers tend to reject the new Messenger. Until today when the Promied One of all time has arrived.

The Baha'i position is very clearly that Christianity and all religion has been corupted by the influence of humankind. This is not "news" to you certainly, You have very clearly pointed out many of the problems in religion. This is not the wishes of Christ or any of the other Prophets of God. Which only points out the need for the renewal of spiritual truth through the latest Mouth Piece of God, Baha'u'llah. Go look for yourself.
http://www.planetbahai.org/

Baha'i tends to think the good peacefull stuff from religions comes from god. The angry stuff is a flaw added by man. Baha'i is actually a very benign religion emphasizing equality of sex and race. They seem to like everybody, but Iran doesn't like them. Go figure.

Please don't blame Iran. Iran is a woderful country filled with many kind, good people. The blame rests soley on the religious authorities who reject the new truth for a number of reasons, including and probably mostly because they would lose their power over the people becaue there are no priests or ministers in the Baha'i Faith.

Asia Toll Nears 77,000 As Aid Arrives (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041229/ap_on_re_as/quake_tsunami) (AP) - Cargo planes touched down with aid Wednesday, bearing everything from lentils to water purifiers to help survivors facing the threat of epidemic after this week's quake-tsunami catastrophe. The first Indonesian military teams reached the devastated west coast of Sumatra island, finding thousands of bodies and increasing the death toll across 12 nations to nearly 77,000. The international Red Cross warned that the toll could eventually surpass 100,000.

So wait, let me see if I've got this straight... if there were a God, people wouldn't die? Is that what you're saying? :confused:
What a pathetic argument.

Please don't blame Iran. Iran is a woderful country filled with many kind, good people. The blame rests soley on the religious authorities who reject the new truth for a number of reasons, including and probably mostly because they would lose their power over the people becaue there are no priests or ministers in the Baha'i Faith.
See what I mean? They like everybody.

See what I mean? They like everybody.

Happy New Year! :)

5. O SON OF DUST!
Verily I say unto thee: Of all men the most negligent is he that disputeth idly and seeketh to advance himself over his brother. Say, O brethren! Let deeds, not words, be your adorning.

(Baha'u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)

68. O CHILDREN OF MEN!
Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory.

(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

The Baha'i position is very clearly that Christianity and all religion has been corupted by the influence of humankind. This is not "news" to you certainly, You have very clearly pointed out many of the problems in religion. This is not the wishes of Christ or any of the other Prophets of God.
Cool. Doesn't Peter say the same thing, in Acts 2:40, about Judaism and why Christianity should replace it?

I am actually quite familiar with Bahai. I am not so sure that God, which to me means the gods, is all that determined to force monogamy down people's throats. I am a pagan priest, worshipping the old gods- the true gods. My religion neither commands nor condemns monogamy. I am not monogamous myself, nor do share the Bahai's faith in a last Prophet to reveal final truth, nor its naive confidence in one world government to be tolerant and democratic. I have little use for the 3 "M"s: monogamy, monotheism, and monarchy. Of course, Etoriana's government is not how I would actually run a state. Far from it. To me, the ideal state is an Enlightenment-style, neo-classical, Roman-style republic. Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and Voltaire would feel very much at home there.

"The gods have declared Christ to have been most pious. He has become immortal, and by them his memory is cherished. Whereas, the Christians are a polluted set, contaminated and enmeshed in error."- Porphyry

[QUOTE=Zeta2 Reticuli]by a man named Constantine. It boggles my mind that christians don't even read up on their own history. And the bible wasn't written in its present form until about 400 C.E. & King James version over 1000 years after that. And if you study up on early christianity you will see that they didn't even agree on what to put in the bible for over a hundred years!QUOTE]

Constantine? your kidding? Him and all those other political leaders of the time who composed the version of the bible we know today? That Constantine was a follower of the Egyptian Sun god Ra? That his conversion was a beam of light that looked like a cross and said "Conquer by This"? Not to mention the massive conspiracy that has arrisen as to whether or not these men were truly under divine influence to publish the books? Nope...didn't know that. Oh and the KJV (King James Version) was first published in 1611. The council of Nicea, who compiled the Bible met in 329 C.E., on June 19th to be exact. Moreover that Christian apocraphya is still held with in the Vatican's archives. Nope, I don't no anything about early Christianity, or the Gnostics (another group wiped out by the Catholic church). Truly, I know nothing. I am so grateful that your dates were so accurate, and your wisdom enlightened me.

Actually, things can happen by chance. It's called probability. And the probability was in favor of christianity because of the demagogs who scared everyone with the prospect of hell and kept an iron grip on people's lives for many many years.

So therefore, with a probability, we know if something will/will not happen. Nothing is coincidence, it happens a percentage of times for a reason. Why does a coin have a 50% chance of landing on heads? It has two sides (don't give me the whole "third edge" junk either...that percentage is so small it's extraneous). Therefore the probability is no coincidence. To fill you in, those people who scared the hell out of everyone? Yeah, did you ever wonder why it was called the dark ages? Corruption of power was everywhere. Coincidence that those who could read and write had power over others who had not education beyond farming? Yeah right. Maybe it is you who should check up on you history before making claims. After all, what is the probability that out of 100 million sperm, YOU were the fastest.

[QUOTE=Zeta2 Reticuli]20 million died during the holocaust. 30 million died during Stalin's holocaust. If GOD was responsible for the few hundred thousand that survived then he is just as responsible for the 50 million deaths. Hitler "messed up" by attacking Russia and opening up a two front war. I doubt very much god commanded him to attack Russia so he could lose the war. Hitler was just nuts.[QUOTE]

Was Hitler nut's? Possibly. Hitler was stupid. He believed that he was a God. He was a Magalomaniac, not nut's persay. Perhaps God destroyed him for his claiming to be God.

So therefore, with a probability, we know if something will/will not happen. Nothing is coincidence, it happens a percentage of times for a reason.

Uh, that's not how probability works. If I flip a coin now, do you *know* if it will be heads? No, yet that is what you said in your first sentence. And yes, there are coincidences. Is it a coincidence that two people on opposite sides of the world flip a coin and both get heads? Of course not, you said coincidences don't exist.

Why does a coin have a 50% chance of landing on heads? It has two sides (don't give me the whole "third edge" junk either...that percentage is so small it's extraneous).

Actually, the chance of it landing on heads is less than 50% because tails weighs more, so tails is preferred over heads. Yet I fail to see how this proves there is no such thing as a coincidence.

Therefore the probability is no coincidence.

Probability is just the number of positive results over the number of total results. It's just a number. I don't know how you think you're proving that coincidences don't exist. Coincidences involve chance. What is the likelihood of two things occuring in close proximity in time and space, especially when the two things are rare occurences? Most people would consider something to be a coincidence if the likelihood of two things happening in close proximity were unlikely. It is a coincidence when you flip a coin 10 times and you always get heads, because the likelihood is (1/2^10). Is that not a coincidence still?

Probability is just a number. Coincidences are a function of probability, not something excluded by it.

To fill you in, those people who scared the hell out of everyone? Yeah, did you ever wonder why it was called the dark ages? Corruption of power was everywhere. Coincidence that those who could read and write had power over others who had not education beyond farming? Yeah right. Maybe it is you who should check up on you history before making claims. After all, what is the probability that out of 100 million sperm, YOU were the fastest.


Look, what does this have to do with anything? And, no it is not a coincidence that those who could read and write had powers over others, they had a significant advantage which allowed them to succeed. The likelihood of that occuring is pretty high, considering the advantages that they had. It would have been a coincidence if every single ruler in the middle ages lacked an ear, as the probability of *every single ruler* not having an ear is astronomical. Yet still possible. And about your last rhetorical question, before the race started, 1/100,000,000. There.

20 million died during the holocaust. 30 million died during Stalin's holocaust. If GOD was responsible for the few hundred thousand that survived then he is just as responsible for the 50 million deaths. Hitler "messed up" by attacking Russia and opening up a two front war. I doubt very much god commanded him to attack Russia so he could lose the war. Hitler was just nuts.

Was Hitler nut's? Possibly. Hitler was stupid. He believed that he was a God. He was a Magalomaniac, not nut's persay. Perhaps God destroyed him for his claiming to be God.

Yeah, if Hitler wasn't a megalomaniac, maybe god would have let the holocaust continue. Gee, god has an image problem now, does he? Let's not save the millions, but if you for one minute claim to be I am gonna mess you up!

Since the Bible never claims that God should stop all suffering, where do people get the idea that he should?

Yeah, who'd a thunk such a nice omnipotent god should help people for a change, instead of sending plagues and tsunamis.

Constantine? your kidding? Him and all those other political leaders of the time who composed the version of the bible we know today? That Constantine was a follower of the Egyptian Sun god Ra? That his conversion was a beam of light that looked like a cross and said "Conquer by This"? Not to mention the massive conspiracy that has arrisen as to whether or not these men were truly under divine influence to publish the books? Nope...didn't know that. Oh and the KJV (King James Version) was first published in 1611. The council of Nicea, who compiled the Bible met in 329 C.E., on June 19th to be exact. Moreover that Christian apocraphya is still held with in the Vatican's archives. Nope, I don't no anything about early Christianity, or the Gnostics (another group wiped out by the Catholic church). Truly, I know nothing. I am so grateful that your dates were so accurate, and your wisdom enlightened me.

I was sparing people a history lesson. I've studied Constantine AND early christianity extensively and if you see my post you will see, while broad, everything I said was factual.
And furthermore, Constantine never followed the god Ra. His father Constantius worshipped the god Herecles who was attributed to the sun god Sol (who was the Roman version of Helios) and Constantine adopted Sol as his own champion (all emperors up to then chosed a diety to champion). Constantine's mother Helena was a christian and had GREAT influence over her son. She's the one who "converted him" if you will because the story of the dream and cross in the sky comes from Eusebius, a second hand source about 20 years after the events supposedly took place. Constantine NEVER spoke of the dream or beam of light except supposedly to Eusebius much much later (The only source we have of these events is Eusebius-a devote christian I might add- and his works are suspect at best). Constantine never actually proclaimed himself a christian in his lifetime either. He issued the edict of Milan in 313 C.E. which stopped the persecution of christians . THIS is the event I was talking about and why christianity survived. Why would he do this? perhaps because his MOTHER was a christian (And he loved Helena dearly and she was basically at his side for most of his life). Up until this point christianity was a small sect with a small following. It would not have become as influencial as it did without Constantine's (Helena's more accurately) intervention. There are more personal and military events that took place in Constantine's life but these have little to do with the subject at hand so I won't delve into them.
Feel more enlightened now? you should.

Yeah, who'd a thunk such a nice omnipotent god should help people for a change, instead of sending plagues and tsunamis.

How predictable. You only observe the bad things of the world and blame it on God. Not crediting him with the good things.

Baha'i tends to think the good peacefull stuff from religions comes from god. The angry stuff is a flaw added by man. Baha'i is actually a very benign religion emphasizing equality of sex and race. They seem to like everybody, but Iran doesn't like them. Go figure.

Baha'i doesn't seem like a terrible religion to be honest. All religions are man-made but some are more benign than others and this one APPEARS to be one of the more benign ones ( at a quick glance). I don't believe in this stuff but these guys can go on preaching about peace because we definately need it in the world. Same can be said for Buddhism, another religion (more of a philosophy but that's splitting hairs) I respect greatly.

I find nothing from the quote by Gore Vidal to object to. The revelation of God never ends it contines with new Messengers every few thousand years. The former followers tend to reject the new Messenger. Until today when the Promied One of all time has arrived.

The Baha'i position is very clearly that Christianity and all religion has been corupted by the influence of humankind. This is not "news" to you certainly, You have very clearly pointed out many of the problems in religion. This is not the wishes of Christ or any of the other Prophets of God. Which only points out the need for the renewal of spiritual truth through the latest Mouth Piece of God, Baha'u'llah. Go look for yourself.
http://www.planetbahai.org/

I'd argue, while the bolded statement is so very true, that all religions are flawed and fallible because they were created by humans in the first place. But I cannot disagree with the bolded text.

Please don't blame Iran. Iran is a woderful country filled with many kind, good people. The blame rests soley on the religious authorities who reject the new truth for a number of reasons, including and probably mostly because they would lose their power over the people becaue there are no priests or ministers in the Baha'i Faith.

This sounds very similar to the catholic church in the middle ages... how sad that this is still repeated even today.

You know, let's just go ahead and give up on science altogether and say it "works in mysterious ways". Worked for the jocks.

How predictable. You only observe the bad things of the world and blame it on God. Not crediting him with the good things.

Sure, I'll give a god credit for the good things in the world when you give credit for your existence to evolution. Not going to happen, is it?

You know, let's just go ahead and give up on science altogether and say it "works in mysterious ways". Worked for the jocks.
The most ironic thing is when christians or theists question science over the internet, the computer they are using *is* science at work.

The most ironic thing is when christians or theists question science over the internet, the computer they are using *is* science at work.

Yeah, but to notice that, the theists would have to pull their head out of a place it's stuck in very well.

Sure, I'll give a god credit for the good things in the world when you give credit for your existence to evolution. Not going to happen, is it?

Evolution may be the way that life changes, but it definitely isnt the way life started. (see complete and utter lack of proof for Abiogenesis)

Evolution may be the way that life changes, but it definitely isnt the way life started. (see complete and utter lack of proof for Abiogenesis)

*

Hmmm, funny, I hope you aren't a scientist. I'll get to that later, though, because you completely missed the point. Congratulations. Why should I credit a god that I do not believe in for all of the good things in the world? Your earlier post only really applies if I believed in a god and thought he was evil (which is a distinct possibility, if a god exists), because you essentially said I should give credit to a god for the good things. Why would I do such a thing? I am no more likely to do that than you are to credit your existence to abiogenesis. OK, back to the science thing. First of all, yes, you are technically correct that evolution is not the way life started. Fine, but it was the way that you were created. You evolved from your parents, slightly. Very slightly. I'll grant you the technicality. But then you go off onto an irrelevant tangent with abiogenesis. Irrelevant because we were not discussing how life was created but how you were created. Anyway, just because there is no proof of something, does not mean that the process does not exist. I have faith that abiogenesis is correct. ;) Just kidding, I really don't, but there is evidence for it, and anyone who told you that there isn't is off a little bit. I wouldn't call it overwhelming evidence though, not by a long shot.

*sorry about the flamebaitish tone at the beginning

Evolution may be the way that life changes, but it definitely isnt the way life started. (see complete and utter lack of proof for Abiogenesis)
There is proof we have the same ancestry as chimps. 97% of our genes are the same. And early homonids have close to 99% of our genes. We're within 90% of all great apes I might add. Now, how would you explain that if we didn't have a common ancestry?

Evolution may be the way that life changes, but it definitely isnt the way life started. (see complete and utter lack of proof for Abiogenesis)

You are right, life didn't start by evolution...it was started by a very very long series of random chemical reactions

*

Hmmm, funny, I hope you aren't a scientist. I'll get to that later, though, because you completely missed the point. Congratulations. Why should I credit a god that I do not believe in for all of the good things in the world? Your earlier post only really applies if I believed in a god and thought he was evil (which is a distinct possibility, if a god exists), because you essentially said I should give credit to a god for the good things. Why would I do such a thing? I am no more likely to do that than you are to credit your existence to abiogenesis. OK, back to the science thing. First of all, yes, you are technically correct that evolution is not the way life started. Fine, but it was the way that you were created. You evolved from your parents, slightly. Very slightly. I'll grant you the technicality. But then you go off onto an irrelevant tangent with abiogenesis. Irrelevant because we were not discussing how life was created but how you were created. Anyway, just because there is no proof of something, does not mean that the process does not exist. I have faith that abiogenesis is correct. ;) Just kidding, I really don't, but there is evidence for it, and anyone who told you that there isn't is off a little bit. I wouldn't call it overwhelming evidence though, not by a long shot.

*sorry about the flamebaitish tone at the beginning

Mutation is the driving force behind evolution. That and natural selection.

You are right, life didn't start by evolution...it was started by a very very long series of random chemical reactions

The very acts of "thinking" or "feeling emotion" are long series of random chemical reactions in the brain ;) (well, they aren't random but you get my point.)

well, they aren't random...

I have a feeling they are, and so do alot of people

:headbang: If there is a Christian god then he is bi polar! Just my opinon. Really though, bad things happen to people all the time. The world can not exist without evil. Good and evil, there has to be a balance made. To all the christians: I think it is very funny that you are all trying to make people believe in your god, STOP SHOVING YOUR RELIGION ON PEOPLE! The only reason that christianity exist is because rebels were sick of Wicca! Something within Wicca bothered them so they made their own religion, but if you study both religions closely enough you realize that there are a lot of similarites in them. Christanity took what it liked from Wicca and then added other stuff and viola you have a new religion for idiots! :gundge: If anyone wants to have faith in something then let it be Wicca, the first true religion!

I have a feeling they are, and so do alot of people
They could very well be. I only took one A&P class (Anatomy & Physiology that emphasized the cardiovascular and skeletal systems) in college so I don't know very much about the nervous system other than the basics. I do know they are caused by chemicals though.

:headbang: If there is a Christian god then he is bi polar! Just my opinon. Really though, bad things happen to people all the time. The world can not exist without evil. Good and evil, there has to be a balance made. To all the christians: I think it is very funny that you are all trying to make people believe in your god, STOP SHOVING YOUR RELIGION ON PEOPLE! The only reason that christianity exist is because rebels were sick of Wicca! Something within Wicca bothered them so they made their own religion, but if you study both religions closely enough you realize that there are a lot of similarites in them. Christanity took what it liked from Wicca and then added other stuff and viola you have a new religion for idiots! :gundge: If anyone wants to have faith in something then let it be Wicca, the first true religion!

Actually, christianity borrowed ALOT from Zoroasterianism. The whole good god, bad god, heaven and hell, and even a savior (good god) who was to be born and die to save humans from the evil god...Sounds familiar? I could go into great detail but I rather not (unless someone calls me out on this one like the Constantine post... Then the gloves will come off).
Wicca as we know it is just a hodgepodge of archaic and new age religions thrown together into a pretty package. There is a lot of celtic influence but the wicca today is MUCH different from the wicca of 2000-2500 years ago. And you can blame the Roman pagans led by Ceaser for wiping out most-if not all- of the old Wiccan/Celtic religion.
There is as much validity in wicca as there is in christianity. Both are man-made.

Thought you might actually be on to something. But turns out its just a hoax. Oh, and the death toll is up to 114,000 now. And I'm post number 666 :)

And I'm post number 666 :)
so does that make you the anti-christ? :p

The Problem of Evil in theology has always interested me, if there is a Good All-Powerful God who loves humanity , why does this God continuelly let evil happen to His beloved creation? And why does this God condemn these poor misguided humans to an eternity of suffering for the misdeeds or rather the unbelief they had in a finite life?


because thats the cost of free will.

Mutation is the driving force behind evolution. That and natural selection.

Yes, I know. ;)

God doesn't live our lives for us, and he's not going to stop bad things from happening to us. What would be the point of life if we didn't learn from hardship? Oh wait, people like you want God to make life 100% perfect for them. Isn't that what the afterlife is for, as a reward for putting up with shit in this life?


Christ on a bike! what a shit argument for God having nothing to do with natural disasters!

Christians are always saying that when man is bad to man (murder, the holocaust, 9/11 etc) it's because man has free will.
Did your god give free will to the tectonic plates? or Volcano's? or the weather?
Common sense tells you that IF god exists he's a pretty nasty piece of work to take over 120,000 lives in such a manner in one go.
The only thing I learn from a hardship like this is that god certainly does not exist.

because thats the cost of free will.

If god is omniscient, then free will cannot exist. This was discussed 20 pages ago...

Yes, I know. ;)

I was just simplifying things for the theists ;)

The Problem of Evil in theology has always interested me, if there is a Good All-Powerful God who loves humanity , why does this God continuelly let evil happen to His beloved creation? And why does this God condemn these poor misguided humans to an eternity of suffering for the misdeeds or rather the unbelief they had in a finite life?
:headbang:
IDIOTS!!! If there's a God, there's also a Satan, forever battling Him. Without evil, there can be no good. One cannot exist without the other. It's like the chaos theory. Besides, humans always find something to grumble about. Maybe it's our fault this stupid debate got started. The world moves too fast for God to control every tiny aspect of our lives. It's more our fault than His.
:p
So there.

I was just simplifying things for the theists ;)

It would take much more simplification for that. That's why I thought it was addressed at me. My mistake.

Now here's my simplification for the theists:

The only thing I learn from a hardship like this is that god certainly does not exist.
a god *could* exist. Just not the "all loving", "all knowing", and "all powerful" one. I'll never deny the existence of *a* god, I'll just deny the definition of god created by religion because these gods are man-made creations. God could be a powerful, extremely advanced alien for all I know. hell, god could be Cthulu for all I know :p I doubt that there is a god but the possibility that one exists remains because we cannot prove or disprove his existence. But because god has never given us a sliver of proof that he does exist I tend to believe he *doesn't* exist. There is no way to prove this one way or the other though.

IDIOTS!!! If there's a God, there's also a Satan, forever battling Him.

Yeah, if you believe in Christianity. I can name several religions that don't have a devil.

Without evil, there can be no good. One cannot exist without the other. It's like the chaos theory.

Prove it. And no, there is no relation to chaos theory. Methinks you must read up on it more.

Besides, humans always find something to grumble about. Maybe it's our fault this stupid debate got started. The world moves too fast for God to control every tiny aspect of our lives. It's more our fault than His.
:p
So there.

That was about as effective a proof of your viewpoints as me saying I like Darwin because I believe in creationism. You essentially just denied your god's omnipotence. Congratulations, now will you help is with the rest?

Cheers ;)

:headbang:
IDIOTS!!! If there's a God, there's also a Satan, forever battling Him. Without evil, there can be no good. One cannot exist without the other. It's like the chaos theory. Besides, humans always find something to grumble about. Maybe it's our fault this stupid debate got started. The world moves too fast for God to control every tiny aspect of our lives. It's more our fault than His.
:p
So there.

if there is a "satan" and he's "forever battling god", and in order for there to be good there must be evil, then it's safe to say satan is just as powerful as god. This throws the omnipotent theory out the door.

if there is a "satan" and he's "forever battling god", and in order for there to be good there must be evil, then it's safe to say satan is just as powerful as god. This throws the omnipotent theory out the door.

Gee, that is probably the best answer for that I've heard, but you know we're gonna hear about how god is really subsidizing satan and won't defeat him, because he cares just *so* much about us humans.

God does not interfere nor does he create catastrophe's. We humans live and die by our actions, decisions and ideas...I could go on and on but what's the use. People who don't believe in God will NOT change their mind just as those who do will not change either.

FYI. Funny how those who don't believe in God are some of the first to cry out "Oh God save me" or "God help me" in times of severe distress.

And here's a little something:

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a

University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one
student was
so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the

Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of

enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs
heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some
variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time.

So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and
the
rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume
that
once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are
leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different
Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions
state

that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there is more than one of these religions and since people

do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all
souls go

to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number

of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate
of

change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order
for the

temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell
has to

expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls

enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase

until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of

souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell

freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Borders during my

Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep
with you,

and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then

number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic

and has already frozen over.
The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over,

it follows that it is not accepting any more

souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby

proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last
night,
Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."







THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A

God doesn't live our lives for us, and he's not going to stop bad things from happening to us. What would be the point of life if we didn't learn from hardship? Oh wait, people like you want God to make life 100% perfect for them. Isn't that what the afterlife is for, as a reward for putting up with shit in this life?
So true! :D

God does not interfere nor does he create catastrophe's. We humans live and die by our actions, decisions and ideas...I could go on and on but what's the use. People who don't believe in God will NOT change their mind just as those who do will not change either.

FYI. Funny how those who don't believe in God are some of the first to cry out "Oh God save me" or "God help me" in times of severe distress.



Should I laugh now, or wait till the end of the post?


And here's a little something:

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a

University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one
student was
so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the

Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of

enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs
heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some
variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time.

So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and
the
rate at which they are leaving.

Snip

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A

Yeah, that's pretty good, I read a slightly different version of it somewhere else. Hehe, I'm glad I saved my laughter for the rest of the post. ;)

Cheers

Gee, that is probably the best answer for that I've heard, but you know we're gonna hear about how god is really subsidizing satan and won't defeat him, because he cares just *so* much about us humans.
according to christian tradition, angels have no free will. Yet "satan", who was an angel, was able to rebel against god. This leads me to conclude that god *willed* satan to rebel and thus god created evil. This is why god subsidizing satan doesn't make sense. That would be like you stealing candy from a store then shoving it in your younger brother's pocket so he would be blamed for the theft. That's what god would be doing... shifting the blame to "satan" for the evils of the world when god actually created it in the first place.
I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this by a christian.

Honestly, why do you people care? :confused: If you do or or don't believe in God, keep your beliefs to yourself. Stop trying to influence others.
And yes, I know the same applies to me. :p

Yeah, who'd a thunk such a nice omnipotent god should help people for a change, instead of sending plagues and tsunamis.

You seem to have difficulty understanding that this physical world doesn't really mean squat in the grand scheme of things. It's like you getting all upset over somebody dying in a video game, and your parents not really caring. God's the parent, life's the video game.

according to christian tradition, angels have no free will. Yet "satan", who was an angel, was able to rebel against god. This leads me to conclude that god *willed* satan to rebel and thus god created evil. This is why god subsidizing satan doesn't make sense. That would be like you stealing candy from a store then shoving it in your younger brother's pocket so he would be blamed for the theft. That's what god would be doing... shifting the blame to "satan" for the evils of the world when god actually created it in the first place.
I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this by a christian.

Gee, that combined with what I've said several times is pretty much unstoppable. I have this in another post in this thread, and another as well, but no one has ever answered it either.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7823414&postcount=521

That's simplistic, but I wanted to explain when an actual argument started, but it never did.

Well, the honest truth to that is that you don't know. But according to Christian faith, as I understand it, "right" and "honest" are defined as God's will, so technically he can't be a jerk because he's the one who sets the standards.

You seem to have difficulty understanding that this physical world doesn't really mean squat in the grand scheme of things. It's like you getting all upset over somebody dying in a video game, and your parents not really caring. God's the parent, life's the video game.

You seem to have difficulty understanding that we live in the physical world. It MIGHT not matter to you, depending on what grand scheme of things YOU believe in, but maybe other people feel differently about that? Once you convince me that YOUR view of the grand scheme of things is correct, I might listen to your apology for an inactive and incaring god.

Well, the honest truth to that is that you don't know. But according to Christian faith, as I understand it, "right" and "honest" are defined as God's will, so technically he can't be a jerk because he's the one who sets the standards.

Well, sure you don't know if god's a bastard or not. I don't know if I said that in that post. But, god could still be a jerk in the christian faith, because god could be lying about what he really wants. Not that an omnipotent god really wants anything, nor would he or she need to lie, but then, an omnipotent god surely could.

You seem to have difficulty understanding that this physical world doesn't really mean squat in the grand scheme of things. It's like you getting all upset over somebody dying in a video game, and your parents not really caring. God's the parent, life's the video game.

physical world or physical universe? I'll agree that our world is so minute and insignificant in terms of the universe... But the universe is the only "grand scheme of things" we have proven to exist.
And well, if your analogy holds true, then god doesn't care whether or not we live or die (going back to the theory proposed earlier that our existence is nothing more than a giant "The Sims" video game played by god :p )

I like this ineffability groove that God's got going on. I'm going to try it out and see if it works as well for me.

Wife: Why haven't you washed the dishes?
Me: I move in mysterious ways, my wonders to perform. It is all a part of my plan.

Boss: Why doesn't this software work?
Me: It is not given to you to understand the workings of the whole. Be at peace, my child, and know that I love you.

You seem to have difficulty understanding that we live in the physical world. It MIGHT not matter to you, depending on what grand scheme of things YOU believe in, but maybe other people feel differently about that? Once you convince me that YOUR view of the grand scheme of things is correct, I might listen to your apology for an inactive and incaring god.

I don't believe in a God, but I'm just saying... if you DO, then there's nothing unjust or uncaring about his letting people die, because death doesn't matter. It's a faulty argument.

If you DON'T believe in a god, then it's just an unfortunate even... which again, doesn't really matter, because we're all just going to die eventually anyway. ;)

I like this ineffability groove that God's got going on. I'm going to try it out and see if it works as well for me.

Wife: Why haven't you washed the dishes?
Me: I move in mysterious ways, my wonders to perform. It is all a part of my plan.

Boss: Why doesn't this software work?
Me: It is not given to you to understand the workings of the whole. Be at peace, my child, and know that I love you.

Yeah, too bad you haven't had 2000 years of people trying to rationalize what you've done. Ineffability helps, but a team of slimy apologists also helps. And some rabid followers who feel like they need to be in a clique. Ooh, some furry chipmunks help as well. And people who easily succumb to the influence of televangelists, so you can pretend to heal them.

I don't believe in a God, but I'm just saying... if you DO, then there's nothing unjust or uncaring about his letting people die, because death doesn't matter. It's a faulty argument.

If you DON'T believe in a god, then it's just an unfortunate even... which again, doesn't really matter, because we're all just going to die eventually anyway. ;)

Well, ok, but it depends still what god you believe in. Some religions, especially ones without an afterlife, might give death more of a stigma than a short trip to purgatory(or, for protestants, heaven or hell).

Oh yeah, your capitalization of god threw me off. ;)

Cheers

undefinedaccording to christian tradition, angels have no free will. Yet "satan", who was an angel, was able to rebel against god. This leads me to conclude that god *willed* satan to rebel and thus god created evil. This is why god subsidizing satan doesn't make sense. That would be like you stealing candy from a store then shoving it in your younger brother's pocket so he would be blamed for the theft. That's what god would be doing... shifting the blame to "satan" for the evils of the world when god actually created it in the first place.
I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this by a christian.
That's a great point and I'm glad it was posted. I can't think of any way to logically oppose it. I'm happy that SOMEONE posted something worth reading.
And yes, I'm a Christian. :)

undefined
That's a great point and I'm glad it was posted. I can't think of any way to logically oppose it. I'm happy that SOMEONE posted something worth reading.
And yes, I'm a Christian. :)

Ya know, it's these posts that give me faith in the human race. Not that you're coming around, just that you're willing to admit that an opposing viewpoint has some merit. Thankfully, I won't ever have to admit that in this forum. ;) ;) ;)

Cheers,
The Dictator of Afslavistakistania

I like this ineffability groove that God's got going on. I'm going to try it out and see if it works as well for me.

Wife: Why haven't you washed the dishes?
Me: I move in mysterious ways, my wonders to perform. It is all a part of my plan.

Boss: Why doesn't this software work?
Me: It is not given to you to understand the workings of the whole. Be at peace, my child, and know that I love you.

LOL!!! man... god does have it easy doesn't he? :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, your capitalization of god threw me off. ;)

Cheers

Sorry, it's kindof a habit. I was raised as a christian. :p

according to christian tradition, angels have no free will. Yet "satan", who was an angel, was able to rebel against god. This leads me to conclude that god *willed* satan to rebel and thus god created evil. This is why god subsidizing satan doesn't make sense. That would be like you stealing candy from a store then shoving it in your younger brother's pocket so he would be blamed for the theft. That's what god would be doing... shifting the blame to "satan" for the evils of the world when god actually created it in the first place.
I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this by a christian.

well the christians whom you talk to have all been brainwashed by televangelists then...
the solution to your problem is simple
it lies in the first clause of your post, "according to christian tradition"
the tradition is probably wrong then; after all, for 1500 years it was "christian tradition" that the sun went around the earth and we all know how that turned out

i dont know of anywhere in the bible where it suggests that angels have no free will

(in response to my earlier posting)
Ya know, it's these posts that give me faith in the human race. Not that you're coming around, just that you're willing to admit that an opposing viewpoint has some merit. Thankfully, I won't ever have to admit that in this forum. ;) ;) ;)

Cheers,
The Dictator of Afslavistakistania
Finally, someone understands me!!!

Thanks,
The Undisputed Leader of Stupidoplis :)

christians are stupid and brainwashed. End of story. you can't argue with them and it's pointless, because all they say is either
a) have faith
b) god willed it
c) well, you don't have to believe, but you're going to hell
d) all of the above

they are narrow-minded and stubborn people, even when given solid evidence

and yes, i have gone to church with a friend of mine, i have argued with their pastor/whole church and i came to this conclusion, that christianity is a religion that is full of bs

The Earth simply wouldn't be able to operate without balancing the good with the bad, there can never not be tragedy. If God picked on the evil, the world would be good, and where there's good there is always somewhere to aim - something to be evil. This isn't proof, to tell the truth there is no proof in my opinion. That's why all religions are based on faith. God may not exist as a heavenly spirit, but just inside of us instead. This belief has helped so many people through life and their troubles, just casting the notion aside with little or no thought doesn't do it justice. God exists inside of people and maybe outside of people, I don't know about the latter but I know that the thought of a heavenly and almighty soul has helped many people to deal with such tragedies as the tsunami disaster.

The Earth simply wouldn't be able to operate without balancing the good with the bad, there can never not be tragedy. If God picked on the evil, the world would be good, and where there's good there is always somewhere to aim - something to be evil. This isn't proof, to tell the truth there is no proof in my opinion. That's why all religions are based on faith. God may not exist as a heavenly spirit, but just inside of us instead. This belief has helped so many people through life and their troubles, just casting the notion aside with little or no thought doesn't do it justice. God exists inside of people and maybe outside of people, I don't know about the latter but I know that the thought of a heavenly and almighty soul has helped many people to deal with such tragedies as the tsunami disaster.

Thats news to me, the earth from what i can tell runs fine without the balancing forces of good and bad...its amoral

Thats news to me, the earth from what i can tell runs fine without the balancing forces of good and bad...its amoral

Of course there never is a balance, it's impossible. But at least there is good and there is bad. That's what's important. Remember, the above was my opinion - I will of course be disagreed with.

(in response to my earlier posting)

Finally, someone understands me!!!

Thanks,
The Undisputed Leader of Stupidoplis :)

Hey, understanding is a good thing. :) Too bad not many other people feel that way. From theists to atheists.

Cheers, man, and for you God Bless*.
The Dictator of Afslavistakistania

Happy New Year too

*Darn, that's a new year's resolution gone, and I only had 4 hours to go.

Of course there never is a balance, it's impossible. But at least there is good and there is bad. That's what's important. Remember, the above was my opinion - I will of course be disagreed with.

You are right I am going to disagree with you...becuase I don't what good or evil have to do with the earth...its not like they are physical properties

well the christians whom you talk to have all been brainwashed by televangelists then...

good possibility. They were brainwashed by someone that's for sure.


the solution to your problem is simple
it lies in the first clause of your post, "according to christian tradition"
the tradition is probably wrong then; after all, for 1500 years it was "christian tradition" that the sun went around the earth and we all know how that turned out
i dont know of anywhere in the bible where it suggests that angels have no free will

this isn't the point really. The point is that god created evil because he *is* omniscient. It seems to me that god is shifting the blame so he wouldn't appear liable for the presence of evil. Pretty brilliant if you think about it.

ok, how about this?...stop imposing your beliefs on others, as if they are resolute in them you will have no sway thus making this whole topic void. Apparently Tsunami's in Asia proves the nonexistence of god? how about we just don't GIVE A DAMN. Unless most of you live in some kind of parallel dimension you have noticed that the world is a SHITTY PLACE and bad things happen, we don't know why, and there's nothing you can do about it by arguing this stupid topic. get out, go do volunteer work, go do aid if you feel it necessary to try and make the world a better place. Hey I'll just say it, god is the manifestation of mankind, because we as humans have a NEED to know the answers to things, so we make a diety out of the goodness of mankind to explain things. so to sum it all up (for those of you with concise memory retention)stop imposing your beliefs on others and give up ever trying, if you want to feebly attempt to make the world a better place, stop bitching and join the peacecorps or something affiliated with it. and lastly, believe what you want, perception is reality, if you think there's a god, then there is a god, if not, believe what you like. and excuse me for the "harsh" language, as I understand it some people on this board aren't friends of the first amendment, but I found it necessary in order to convey my stong feelings.

-Humbly from the peoples of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841

ok, how about this?...stop imposing your beliefs on others, as if they are resolute in them you will have no sway thus making this whole topic void. Apparently Tsunami's in Asia proves the nonexistence of god? how about we just don't GIVE A DAMN. Unless most of you live in some kind of parallel dimension you have noticed that the wrold is a SHITTY PLACE and bad things happen, we don't know why, and there's nothing you can do about it by arguing this stupid topic. get out, go do volunteer work, go do aid if you feel it necessary to try and make the world a better place. Hey I'll just say it, god is the manifestation of mankind, because we as humans have a NEED to know the answers to things, so we make a diety out of the goodness of mankind to explain things. so to sum it all up (for those of you with concise memory retention)stop imposing your beliefs on others and give up ever trying, if you want to feebly attempt to make the world a better place, stop bitching and join the peacecorps or something affiliated with it. and lastly, believe what you want, perception is reality, if you think there's a god, then there is a god, if not, believe what you like.

-Humbly from the peoples of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841

I'm sorry, but when did you become a representative of the people? Obviously people in this forum are interested in pursuing this topic and WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOUR OPINION. Do you realize that your whole post was trying to force your opinion on everyone here? Are you that blind to your own hypocrisy?

who says god exists... maybe he does maybe he doesnt no1 knows so shut the F@#$ about it

Any third rate deity can come up with a scapegoat, otherwise it never gets to the point of being third rate even. In only rare instances are religions accepted with a god that is responsible for good *and* evil. The only ones that have had a modicum of success were also ones that did not force people to follow god's will.
good point. And a good example is Buddhism which happens to be biggest religion in the world. They beleive we're just part of the universe and our experiences are aimed to better (or worsen) ourselves. I can respect an introspective religion more than an extroverted one (the former rarely inflicts suffering on others while the latter does it constantly).

good point. And a good example is Buddhism which happens to be biggest religion in the world. They beleive we're just part of the universe and our experiences are aimed to better (or worsen) ourselves. I can respect an introspective religion more than an extroverted one (the former rarely inflicts suffering on others while the latter does it constantly).

Yeah, I quite like Buddhism. Pretty reasonable in general.

I can't beleive all you people that use this disaster as an excuse to push your disbelief, I could fill this forum with posts about all of the miracles I have seen, or witnessed on the news like this tragedy. Hundreds of years ago people were dying of disease and losing children everyday, and few people blamed it on God, even decades ago in the early 1900s the world was a much worse place, but people still kept their faith. And now this horrible thing happens and people stand up and shout "Ha! This Proves it! God dosen't exist!!", try picking up a copy of Gray's Anatomy and looking at the complexity of your body, would you say "Well he never shieled my from Cancer!". What about the people that died and spent their lives on that beautiful beach or with a loving family, was God with them then? The point of this post isn't to prove God exists because of all the good things in life, or even to prove he exists at all. All that I am trying to prove is that you cannot hold this huge tragedy over your head as proof, when miracles and gifts surround you eveyday (divine or otherwise)

I can't beleive all you people that use this disaster as an excuse to push your disbelief, I could fill this forum with posts about all of the miracles I have seen, or witnessed on the news like this tragedy. Hundreds of years ago people were dying of disease and losing children everyday, and few people blamed it on God, even decades ago in the early 1900s the world was a much worse place, but people still kept their faith. And now this horrible thing happens and people stand up and shout "Ha! This Proves it! God dosen't exist!!", try picking up a copy of Gray's Anatomy and looking at the complexity of your body, would you say "Well he never shieled my from Cancer!". What about the people that died and spent their lives on that beautiful beach or with a loving family, was God with them then? The point of this post isn't to prove God exists because of all the good things in life, or even to prove he exists at all. All that I am trying to prove is that you cannot hold this huge tragedy over your head as proof, when miracles and gifts surround you eveyday (divine or otherwise)

I don't think you realize why this is being used. The premise is quite simple. And why, all of a sudden are there so many posts to stop this thread? You're not related to the Cult of Pi are you?

Actually, I just read the first couple pages and posted mine thoughts, so this thread is dead? :confused:

I can't beleive all you people that use this disaster as an excuse to push your disbelief, I could fill this forum with posts about all of the miracles I have seen, or witnessed on the news like this tragedy. Hundreds of years ago people were dying of disease and losing children everyday, and few people blamed it on God, even decades ago in the early 1900s the world was a much worse place, but people still kept their faith. And now this horrible thing happens and people stand up and shout "Ha! This Proves it! God dosen't exist!!", try picking up a copy of Gray's Anatomy and looking at the complexity of your body, would you say "Well he never shieled my from Cancer!". What about the people that died and spent their lives on that beautiful beach or with a loving family, was God with them then? The point of this post isn't to prove God exists because of all the good things in life, or even to prove he exists at all. All that I am trying to prove is that you cannot hold this huge tragedy over your head as proof, when miracles and gifts surround you eveyday (divine or otherwise)

well, for what it's worth, this tragedy disproves god just as much as all those beautiful beaches, kind acts, and complexity of the human body prove he exists. You can't just take the good things and attribute them to god and then take the bad things and say the cliche' "god works in mysterious ways" or "human free will" when his ways aren't good. If god exists, god is accountable for everything. And if you bothered to read one page of this thread you would have seen we've evolved from the original post anyways.

according to christian tradition, angels have no free will. Yet "satan", who was an angel, was able to rebel against god. This leads me to conclude that god *willed* satan to rebel and thus god created evil. This is why god subsidizing satan doesn't make sense. That would be like you stealing candy from a store then shoving it in your younger brother's pocket so he would be blamed for the theft. That's what god would be doing... shifting the blame to "satan" for the evils of the world when god actually created it in the first place.
I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this by a christian.
I'm not a Christian but... free will isn't the only explanation for why Satan could rebel against God. Gods and angels behave according to their nature. For instance, it is God's nature to create. It's what he does, and he's pretty good at it. It is Satan's nature to rebel. It's what he does. And he inspires it in us (if you believe in such) so that we rebel against God, and that leads to all the salvation issues.

Actually, I just read the first couple pages and posted mine thoughts, so this thread is dead? :confused:

It's shifted. It started out with that, but it's moved away from that with only occasional references. Although, a lot of the argument does revolve around how a god could care so much and still do such a thing.

Cheers

I'm not a Christian but... free will isn't the only explanation for why Satan could rebel against God. Gods and angels behave according to their nature. For instance, it is God's nature to create. It's what he does, and he's pretty good at it. It is Satan's nature to rebel. It's what he does. And he inspires it in us (if you believe in such) so that we rebel against God, and that leads to all the salvation issues.

So, who gave satan that nature? Bob, the guy from down the street?

So, who gave satan that nature? Bob, the guy from down the street?

atleast we're in agreement Afslavistakistania ;) . Agnostics and Atheists tend to agree on many things.
If god created satan then he is accountable for satan's actions since he *knew* (being omniscient and all) what satan would do. Therefor god is responsible for EVERYTHING including the bad/evil *he* created himself.
We've said this like 10 times already...

So, who gave satan that nature? Bob, the guy from down the street?
Your sarcasm is unwarranted. And it was Brad, not Bob. ;-)

atleast we're in agreement Afslavistakistania ;) . Agnostics and Atheists tend to agree on many things.
If god created satan then he is accountable for satan's actions since he *knew* (being omniscient and all) what satan would do. Therefor god is responsible for EVERYTHING including the bad/evil *he* created himself.
We've said this like 10 times already...

Yeah, I can believe it's been said so many times. Gah, it's an endless cycle. Hmm, maybe I *should* become a Buddhist. My life continues in a circle, why not my lives? ;)

Your sarcasm is unwarranted. And it was Brad, not Bob. ;-)

Oh, my mistake. I apologize for any insult caused by my negligence.

:)

Cheers, and Happy New Years(unless you live in China, where you've got a little while longer to wait, so happy early New Year!),
The Dictator of Afslavistakistania

Yeah, I can believe it's been said so many times. Gah, it's an endless cycle. Hmm, maybe I *should* become a Buddhist. My life continues in a circle, why not my lives? ;)

Don't become a Buddhist...realize that you are Buddha

Don't become a Buddhist...realize that you are Buddha

Easy enough.

*poof*

[SIGNAL ERROR]

Easy enough.

*poof*

[SIGNAL ERROR]

Wait...before you drift into nothingness...don't you want to come back as a Bodhisattva and help those who have not yet made that realization come into the truth of thier nature?

Wait...before you drift into nothingness...don't you want to come back as a Bodhisattva and help those who have not yet made that realization come into the truth of thier nature?

Why would I want to come back to that hellhole which is being? I'm senile in my enlightenment.

;)

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/158/story_15866_1.html

Gathering the Sparks
Rodger Kamenetz


Was God in This Disaster?
Turning to both Judaism and Buddhism for solace, the author meditates on God's role in the tsunami tragedy.




I am trying to connect to this tragedy the best I can. The pictures help a little. I see dead children on the floor, a parent weeping. The little ones look like they are sleeping; it is unimaginable that they are dead. I see a parent holding his dead child. I feel in my body what it is like to hold... that weight. To feel the life gone, and the heaviness of a body that does not have life. It is different from holding a sleeping child, carrying a child to bed for instance. I can feel what this father feels in the photo, can reach in my imagination, and in my memory.

But I can't multiply what I feel by 10,000 or 40,000, or even by ten. We know more than we can feel. And we respond as best we can, I think. This is our situation in a time of instant global communication.

The heart does see from one end of the world to the other, and faster than the internet.

I read that when someone witnessed the huge tidal wave approaching the shore, he thought it was "biblical." The flood story came to his mind, I guess, and behind it the old primitive idea of an angry God, destroying what he once created. Some people still think this way: everything bad that happens is a curse or a punishment and has a reason, even if we don't know what the reason is. I don't buy it.


The children killed didn't have enough time in this life to deserve this death.


This kind of disaster opens difficult prospects for the Western imagination. Some would see in it a monstrous demiurge: an all-powerful God who kills innocent children. We hear the bitter words in King Lear: "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport." Others, seeking to justify God to man, will offer the simple idea that whoever suffers somehow had it coming.

There is a deeper story about suffering in the Talmud. In this story, Moses travels to heaven and sees for himself that Rabbi Akiba is the greatest teacher of Torah. When Moses asks God what Akiba's reward will be, God shows him a vision: Akiba tortured by Romans in the marketplace, his flesh stripped from his body.

Just as it is incomprehensible to us that children, whole families, whole islands could be taken up by a wave and drowned, it is incomprehensible to Moses that a great and good teacher would be "rewarded" with torture.

When Moses asks why, God answers with a riddle, "It arose in thought."

To our own human notion of justice, "it arose in thought" seems cruel and unaccountable. Those who wrote this story must have felt that injustice keenly. But the starkness of this tale shows a kind of maturity of vision we sadly lack in today's religious discourse. God in the story offers no real explanation. There is none at the human level that we could understand. We stand before it stunned and uncomprehending.

At the level of our feelings of right and wrong, we understand there is no explanation for dead children on a beach who were playing and swimming one moment and taken away by a huge wave in the next. I can't accept the answer suggested by the Buddhist idea of group karma, that whatever happens to a group is somehow the result of a previous action of that group, either in this life or in a previous life. I don't accept that explanation in this case.

I don't believe it because this disaster happened to children. They didn't have enough time in this life to deserve this death. And in a previous life? No, that is too abstract for me. The explanation that their acts in a previous life may have warranted this death lacks specificity--and a number of deaths so huge already lacks too much specificity. I need to feel more, not less.

One time I asked the Dalai Lama how he would respond to a parent who had lost a child. And he said--these aren't his exact words--that when you lose a child you are constantly thinking of that child in your imagination. He called the child a "dear one." And he said, "You must know that your 'dear one' does not want you to suffer, to feel so much grief." I found this meditation wholly beautiful.


I don't believe in a God who punishes through disaster. The disaster is.


He added that for a Buddhist, suffering is in the nature of things, and so he would try to remind a Buddhist to reflect on that. But, he said, for a Westerner, there would arise the question of meaning. This boils down to the question of Job: Why would a just God allow the innocent to suffer? The question is just as profound for an individual loss as for a mass disaster: It doesn't get more profound, just more inescapable.

I don't believe that a mass disaster, in and of itself, tells us anything about God. I don't believe in a God who punishes through disaster. The disaster is. That is exactly the way I would understand it, without adding my own interpretation, without supplying a meaning or completing the sentence. The disaster is. The tragedy is. And I need to abide with it, and feel it, instead of seeking an answer, because the answers just make me complacent and take me away from the children on the beach, and the father with the dead child in his arms.

There is no God in the disaster.

I think there is God in the response, in the human hearts of those who are feeling and responding to this, the families and neighbors of the victims, and the rest of us, the bystanders, and us, too. The whole world is feeling it.

I used to think that if something unaccountably bad happened to someone, it needed to be compensated by something good. That was my own internal accounting, my own way of repairing my sense of order, of justice. A boy loses his sight, but he becomes a musical genius. A teacher of mine lost his mobility to polio, but he gained the ability to be a blessing to others. One time I said such things in a public talk, and a woman in a wheelchair rolled toward me and said with great seriousness and very slowly, "I would like you to consider that a disability means…absolutely nothing."

I heard her and felt how I had glibly covered over my heart with an easy reaction.

I love what the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of modern Hasidism, said when asked to define equanimity. "If whatever happens you can say, if it's good enough for God, who am I to judge? That's equanimity." And he added, "But that is a very high rung."

It is a very high rung and I cannot say I am standing on it now, and rarely ever. I cannot say that this tsunami is for the good.

It is not for the good, it is not for the bad. It just is.

It is not a blessing, it is not a curse, it just is.

A tectonic plate shifted, and a vast wave spread across the ocean, and took with it many lives.

And now another wave is spreading, and it is also vast, and it spreads through the hearts of those who let themselves feel it.

The disaster is. It happened to a "dear one," someone's "dear one," many dear ones. I open my heart and feel it. The place it touches in me, touches God.

My main login! BranchTexas....

Why would I want to come back to that hellhole which is being? I'm senile in my enlightenment.

;)
Because all are of the Buddha Nature and to leave one behind in "hellhole of being" is to leave the totality in "the hellhole of being", their is no distinction between You and the Other when you realize your Buddha nature.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/158/story_15866_1.html

Gathering the Sparks
Rodger Kamenetz


Was God in This Disaster?
Turning to both Judaism and Buddhism for solace, the author meditates on God's role in the tsunami tragedy.

Snip

The disaster is. It happened to a "dear one," someone's "dear one," many dear ones. I open my heart and feel it. The place it touches in me, touches God.

While very beautiful, I'm sorry, I have to say it's just a justification. A very nice way of saying god works in mysterious ways. I don't know, I might have missed something completely, and if I did I'm sorry. Yet, it really does not seem to be much more than that. Thank you though for posting it.

Cheers

Harumph. For a moment there I was elated because someone might have an argument against God's existence that I hadn't seen before.

I shouldn't get my hopes up like that. :(

Likewise... :headbang:
I still agree with that paragraph from The Hitchiker's guide... QED...

Because all are of the Buddha Nature and to leave one behind in "hellhole of being" is to leave the totality in "the hellhole of being", their is no distinction between You and the Other when you realize your Buddha nature.

But, does Buddha nature contain Buddha nature? No, I have reached above Buddha nature to contain it. I call it 2Buddha Nature. Next week, I plan to move up to 3Buddha Nature which contains 2Buddha Nature. Eventually, I'll reach Buddha nature^2.*

Cheers

*Good book: Godel, Escher, Bach

christians are stupid and brainwashed. End of story. you can't argue with them and it's pointless, because all they say is either
a) have faith
b) god willed it
c) well, you don't have to believe, but you're going to hell
d) all of the above

they are narrow-minded and stubborn people, even when given solid evidence

and yes, i have gone to church with a friend of mine, i have argued with their pastor/whole church and i came to this conclusion, that christianity is a religion that is full of bs

So, if all Christians are brainwashed, what does that mean to the rest of the world? They don't have their own traditions that they cling to so hard that they can't see past their noses either? Lets take you for example? Are you saying you're the only free thinker in the world?

...

The disaster is. It happened to a "dear one," someone's "dear one," many dear ones. I open my heart and feel it. The place it touches in me, touches God.
That was beautiful. Thank you.

I think those who ask "How could a benevolent God do this?" do not understand what a god(hood) is.

That was beautiful. Thank you.

I think those who ask "How could a benevolent God do this?" do not understand what a god(hood) is.

May I ask if you understand what a god is? And are you sure what you understand to be a god is not just your subjective opinion?

:)

Cheers, and an even closer new years.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/158/story_15866_1.html





I am trying to connect to this tragedy the best I can. The pictures help a little. I see dead children on the floor, a parent weeping. The little ones look like they are sleeping; it is unimaginable that they are dead. I see a parent holding his dead child. I feel in my body what it is like to hold... that weight. To feel the life gone, and the heaviness of a body that does not have life. It is different from holding a sleeping child, carrying a child to bed for instance. I can feel what this father feels in the photo, can reach in my imagination, and in my memory.

But I can't multiply what I feel by 10,000 or 40,000, or even by ten. We know more than we can feel. And we respond as best we can, I think. This is our situation in a time of instant global communication.

etc etc

snip

The disaster is. It happened to a "dear one," someone's "dear one," many dear ones. I open my heart and feel it. The place it touches in me, touches God.

I can understand a believer (in any god) trying to justify or explain away all the death and horror of the disaster, trying to steer it away from a benevolent god like being.
You cannot fathom, in stark reality, how your god could condone/make happen such a disaster on innocent lives, especially children, but really, in my eyes, you are only trying to justify his [gods] position in your own life.
If you have been religous all your life and have a deeply held faith it must be second nature to try and remove any kind of "blame" from your god, how else can you deal with the dawning realisation that your god is not the good omnipotent being that you have worshipped all these years?

120,000 innocent lives in one go!
Your right about one thing, it was not gods work, it was a natural disaster.
If your god actually existed outside your heart and belief then the disaster would have been averted or warned of.

120,000 innocent lives...................try to imagine how many of them cried out to their god as they were sucked out to sea, or smashed into rocks, or buried under houses smashed to smithereens by a tidal wave, thousands upon thousands of cries are hard to miss..................perhaps he just wasn't listening at the time?

Exactly. What did those people do to deserve that kind of sh*t? Caring, benevolent God my ass.

Evidence that a "caring, benevolent God" doesn't exist is not the same as proof that no God exists. Maybe God is bipolar or having a bad eon.

I can understand a believer (in any god) trying to justify or explain away all the death and horror of the disaster, trying to steer it away from a benevolent god like being.
You cannot fathom, in stark reality, how your god could condone/make happen such a disaster on innocent lives, especially children, but really, in my eyes, you are only trying to justify his [gods] position in your own life.
If you have been religous all your life and have a deeply held faith it must be second nature to try and remove any kind of "blame" from your god, how else can you deal with the dawning realisation that your god is not the good omnipotent being that you have worshipped all these years?

120,000 innocent lives in one go!
Your right about one thing, it was not gods work, it was a natural disaster.
If your god actually existed outside your heart and belief then the disaster would have been averted or warned of.

120,000 innocent lives...................try to imagine how many of them cried out to their god as they were sucked out to sea, or smashed into rocks, or buried under houses smashed to smithereens by a tidal wave, thousands upon thousands of cries are hard to miss..................perhaps he just wasn't listening at the time?

It is simple to explain it.. For a beliver.. death is not tragic, it is not fearful.. for those who have died, they've gone to heaven ... and enjoy nothing but bliss...

For an atheist, you do not think in terms of life after death.. or eternaty.. so for you death is tragic for those who die.. and you say god wasn't listening..
On the countray.. i would say he was calling them home, Thus it is joyious for them. It is only sad for us.. since we must continue with the pain of their deaths on our hearts.. Just another test we endure

For those survivors, it is a test, as in all things.. we are always tested. Life on this earth is meant to be hard, full of pain, full of choices. Life isn't meant to be easy, otherwise why send us to earth, when we can stay in heaven (pure bliss) No, Life is meant to show our devotion to god, to what is right.

Well, the thought occurs that perhaps God doesn't exsist, then again it could always be that another race of more intelligent beings populated are planet for us and are watching us to see how we develop. Like an experiment.

And if you do want to say 'i believe in God' then you can't use the word God, History of the Greeks first depicts that a Gods came down to earth, that humans and people could see and hear the Gods and when they prayed for something stupid to happen it did. If we cannot see God, hear him or aknowledge his exsistance then i think that we can't call him God, just a 'force' thats there. If he is there at all.............

:p :sniper:

It is simple to explain it.. For a beliver.. death is not tragic, it is not fearful.. for those who have died, they've gone to heaven ... and enjoy nothing but bliss...

For an atheist, you do not think in terms of life after death.. or eternaty.. so for you death is tragic for those who die.. and you say god wasn't listening..
On the countray.. i would say he was calling them home, Thus it is joyious for them. It is only sad for us.. since we must continue with the pain of their deaths on our hearts.. Just another test we endure

For those survivors, it is a test, as in all things.. we are always tested. Life on this earth is meant to be hard, full of pain, full of choices. Life isn't meant to be easy, otherwise why send us to earth, when we can stay in heaven (pure bliss) No, Life is meant to show our devotion to god, to what is right.

So would I be correct in thinking you would take comfort in that if your entire family were wiped out by an earthquake tomorrow?
Would you be be able to equate a personal tragedy as a "test" on your endurance and love for him?

So would I be correct in thinking you would take comfort in that if your entire family were wiped out by an earthquake tomorrow?
Would you be be able to equate a personal tragedy as a "test" on your endurance and love for him?

At first of course not.. like any person your over come with grief .. but i would definatly at some point take comfort that they were sent back to heaven. the tragedy is only for me.. for them death is release.. the pain i have to endure is the test of love yes..

At first of course not.. like any person your over come with grief .. but i would definatly at some point take comfort that they were sent back to heaven. the tragedy is only for me.. for them death is release.. the pain i have to endure is the test of love yes..


I am happy for you then [honestly]

Personally I prefer to live in [my] real world where I concentrate my love on my family and friends instead of sharing it with someone who may be responsible for so much pain.

Ive always seen pain as a reminder that we are alive. IF you didn't feel pain.. you'd feel rather detached from the world around you, making thigns seem unreal.. and the pain is only for the living.. because the dead are already gone.

they are narrow-minded and stubborn people, even when given solid evidence


Rearly (This should be good). What "Solid evidence" have you got that God does not exist?

Ive always seen pain as a reminder that we are alive. IF you didn't feel pain.. you'd feel rather detached from the world around you, making thigns seem unreal.. and the pain is only for the living.. because the dead are already gone.

Equally I see love and kindness as a reminder that I am alive.
Pain and feeling alive and focussed are not mutually exclusve.

Rearly (This should be good). What "Solid evidence" have you got that God does not exist?

This is an old argument that cannot be won Neo, you know that.

Cheers, and Happy New Years(unless you live in China, where you've got a little while longer to wait, so happy early New Year!),


Actually we get them both. It's 2005 here now, and in a few weeks it'll be the year of the cock, I mean rooster.

I have a question to christians ok. Everything is gods will right? so if I take a 12 gauge to my IT teacher does that mean it is gods fault?

This is an old argument that cannot be won Neo, you know that.

Well in that case, I would apricate the Atheist side to come out and admit that they cannot be "certian" without faith.

I have a question to christians ok. Everything is gods will right? so if I take a 12 gauge to my IT teacher does that mean it is gods fault?

Maybe you should go hang out with your English teacher a bit more (without the gun). However, you make it sound as if He is up there playing a giant game of Sims. If He were to make you do everything that you do, what would be the purpose of trying to be good at all? Whenever you are faced with a choice, does some big voice come out of the sky, or an invisible arm reach out, and make you choose one or the other? You think God sits around saying: "No, not that apple, pick that other apple over there. Yeah, that one. Good, now, move on to the cereal section. Left, right, left, right. Buy the corn flakes."?

Seriously, man has agency, it was part of the whole big plan when we started out here, and if you choose to go shoot your IT teacher (which I would highly discourage), it is your fault, not God's, as you chose to pull the trigger.