NationStates Jolt Archive

Most ever NS board boils down to religon, so why do people bring out of the blue and persecute each other, so why we argue so much? Stormforge said he would like to see a godless world so why how would any of us benefit if either side manage convert everyone?

...well...if everyone were on the same side, there wouldn't be any controversy on the subject and everyone would have the same opinion. since we would all agree on everything any kind of debate would be superfluous and arguing would stop immediately. No one would disagree with anyone and we would all get along.

A terrible notion of a world without diversity

Most ever NS board boils down to religon, so why do people bring out of the blue and persecute each other, so why we argue so much? Stormforge said he would like to see a godless world so why how would any of us benefit if either side manage convert everyone?
The believers think they're helping poor lost souls, or getting brownie points with an invisible creature that brings us stuff like tsunamis and Stalin.

The unbelievers are usually just having fun, though sometimes they're motivated by pity and optimism, thinking they can make a superstitious savage start thinking rationally.

A terrible notion of a world without diversity
yes, but is uniformity really such an evil thing?

Most ever NS board boils down to religon, so why do people bring out of the blue and persecute each other, so why we argue so much? Stormforge said he would like to see a godless world so why how would any of us benefit if either side manage convert everyone?

what I meant to say is what make one side better than the other kind of thing.

Much less war, that's for sure. Peace, dude. :cool:

yes, but is uniformity really such an evil thing?

If would be nobody wanted improvment

People will always find a reason to disagree. Besides, the only thing a religious person and I might agree on is that if we all have to agree, we get to pick our side. Who gets to decide what everyone gets to believe?

thats what im saying no one would benefit without diversity

The believers think they're helping poor lost souls, or getting brownie points with an invisible creature that brings us stuff like tsunamis and Stalin.

Ah yeah, but... mysterious ways... has a plan... unbelieves are incapable of understanding... no one knows the mind of god... say-no-more... :D

yes, but is uniformity really such an evil thing?
I don't remember E.T ever wearing a uniform...

I believe in aliens! I believe in aliens! There is no god! Monkeys are running the cosmos! I believe in aliens!

If would be nobody wanted improvment
but that's a good thing, right? if everyone's content with the status quo, why change it?

I don't remember E.T ever wearing a uniform...

I believe in aliens! I believe in aliens! There is no god! Monkeys are running the cosmos! I believe in aliens!

lol

but that's a good thing, right? if everyone's content with the status quo, why change it?

it wouldn't be right if we went literally ages without change, a different philosophy, without dreams of something new, someone would have to shake things up

Well in my own experience atheists can be really just as ignorant, intolerant etc. as the religious people they hate so much. As a religious person myself I try and take the "do unto others" idea literally: I respect their right not to be religious, just I'd like people to respect my right to be.

it wouldn't be right if we went literally ages without change, a different philosophy, without dreams of something new, someone would have to shake things up
why? if, indeed, everyone were happy with the world as it is,even if that were the case for several generations, why would we need to change anything? isn't this what life is all about? 'enjoy it to the max' (and with that I just clearly sided with the 'no god'-supporters, right?) :D

I really don't believe much in science or religion. I prefer philosophy. Science and religion make cool shows (like Star Trek and Neon Genesis Evangelion), but I take them with a grain of salt and look to philosophy for most of my answers.

I thrive on diversity, personally. Have friends and relatives of all religions...
From Buddhist, to Pantheist to Catholic.
I love 'em all.

:fluffle:

I really don't believe much in science or religion.
Except friends like this...
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

hmmm i guess us religious dont believe that this world will ever be truly happy until we find some greater meaning in our lives. the goal is happiness but to me, sadness and pain can make life beautiful too.

with the 'enjoy life to the max' thing... i just imagine thrill seekers, and how they always seem to want more and more and more and one day coming to a dead end.

but then again, people always want more and more improvement in our lives, since we all deserve the very best :p thats why we always have change. the world wouldnt be fun without changes. :p

the world should be like Destiny's Child in concert: They all wear the same dress with a different style.

the world should be like Destiny's Child in concert: They all wear the same dress with a different style.
There's so much I could add to that. But it's likely to get edited. ;)

If Christianity/Judaism/Islam managed to convert everyone the world would be doomed completely.
Most other religions are a tad less radical and better though out.
Atheism would lead to the total death of spiritual advancement, even more so than the Christians, since discovering anything to do with the soul would be heretical.

"Darkness, light - what's the difference when you can't truly see in either extreme?" - Jason Santiego

I believe that is true, so in reality we need a mix, we need a multilateral world. Not only does it allow for human beings to prosper through conflict, it also allows for a greater degree of freedom.

:( but if this was a World where no-one beleived in God then every one here would go to Hell and where's the fun in that

I don't quite know what atheists belive. What do they belive?

hmmm i guess us religious dont believe that this world will ever be truly happy until we find some greater meaning in our lives.
Healing the sick, making art, falling in love, these give meaning to people's lives. The superstitions of primitive creatures who lived thousands of years ago give us what? War, ignorance, shame at being human, etc. ad nauseum

Athiest's believe there is no God and no life after death Aragan. :(

Most ever NS board boils down to religon, so why do people bring out of the blue and persecute each other, so why we argue so much? Stormforge said he would like to see a godless world so why how would any of us benefit if either side manage convert everyone?Oh great, now that stupid thread is bleeding into other ones. For the record, I am a theist and I believe in God. The world would be no better off if everyone was atheist, or everyone was a theist. It would be exactly the same.

Christins (like me own self) think that the world would be a better place if everyone was christin.

p.s.no life after death is depressing.

Christins (like me own self) think that the world would be a better place if everyone was christin.

that would be nice, in fact a utopia, but we'd have to be REAL christians.

that means sharing everything, loving everyone, and following the teachings of Jesus.

This includes giving up all our possesions. Making us communist hippies basically.

Until we realise that everyone but benedictine monks* (a communal christian society) is really falling short of the requirements for heaven on earth, christianity is going to look like a bunch of hypocrites

(*ok, so other people qualify too, just the benedictines seems to be the closest followers of jesus)

Much less war, that's for sure. Peace, dude. :cool:

Probably not. We'll just find another excuse.

Athiest's believe there is no God and no life after death Aragan. :(
Not necessarily. Atheists can believe in life after death.

Most ever NS board boils down to religon, so why do people bring out of the blue and persecute each other, so why we argue so much? Stormforge said he would like to see a godless world so why how would any of us benefit if either side manage convert everyone?


Well, if the atheist side 'converted' (de-converted?) everyone (in america), there would cease to be opposition to social progress on religious grounds.

Also great sums of money otherwise wasted by religion would be available to be better spent.

Say on medical care or food for the starving and dying millions.

:sniper: I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm guessing those pushing atheism support evolution. Show of hands, anybody agree, disagree?

:sniper: I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm guessing those pushing atheism support evolution. Show of hands, anybody agree, disagree?

You're trying to make generalisations. Athiesm isn't an organised religion with a big holy text, so you can't go saying that all athiests support evolution any more than you can say that all athiests prefer strawberry poptarts.

Don't try me. This isn't about generalizing poptarts for you. If I wanted to imply that you were organized and specific, there might have been words like "all" in there. So tell me then, God's out, and you say I'm "trying to make generalisations" by saying that a majority of atheists believe in evolution, so what great alternative do you have to stun me with?

Well, if the atheist side 'converted' (de-converted?) everyone (in america), there would cease to be opposition to social progress on religious grounds.

Also great sums of money otherwise wasted by religion would be available to be better spent.

Say on medical care or food for the starving and dying millions.

Or used to suppress religion.

So tell me then, God's out, and you say I'm "trying to make generalisations" by saying that a majority of atheists believe in evolution, so what great alternative do you have to stun me with?

Whether or not I think it's likely to be true, doesn't mean you're not making generalisations.

I think most Christians believe in evolution.

The believers think they're helping poor lost souls, or getting brownie points with an invisible creature that brings us stuff like tsunamis and Stalin.

The unbelievers are usually just having fun, though sometimes they're motivated by pity and optimism, thinking they can make a superstitious savage start thinking rationally.


score a victory for athieism, for it called the shot on me! I am a superstitious savage who can not think rationally! great accusation Dingoroonia

All right then, no answer to my last question, so I'll move on. If we go down the road of Religion, we accept a pre-existant creator God. If we go down the road of atheims, whether we accept evolution or not, we accept matter as pre-existant. There is no getting around that, folks. How's that law go?, something like "matter can neither be created or destroyed." What I really want to know from the Atheists out there is this. Was this matter pre-existant in it's modern form, was there a Big Bang, or like Prrrrk told me, am I making generalizations by trying to limit you to a prevalent opinion (in which case feel free to posit your own opinion)?

I think most Christians believe in evolution. Than these "Christians" don't believe the Bible. Genesis 1 clearly states that God created everything. I like to keep a firm view on both sides.

Than these "Christians" don't believe the Bible. Genesis 1 clearly states that God created everything. I like to keep a firm view on both sides.

So only Fundamentalist Christians are "Christians"?

There are plenty of people out there who go to church and call themselves Christians and yet don't believe everything that's written in that book.

Whoa, most christians do not believe in evolution. Since we are irrational hypocritical and fanatacal we have found ways to lie to ourselves and disprove evolution.

All right then, no answer to my last question, so I'll move on. If we go down the road of Religion, we accept a pre-existant creator God. If we go down the road of atheims, whether we accept evolution or not, we accept matter as pre-existant. There is no getting around that, folks. How's that law go?, something like "matter can neither be created or destroyed." What I really want to know from the Atheists out there is this. Was this matter pre-existant in it's modern form, was there a Big Bang, or like Prrrrk told me, am I making generalizations by trying to limit you to a prevalent opinion (in which case feel free to posit your own opinion)?

Quite clearly you wanted to establish Athiest <-> Evolutionism since you already have your argument mapped out 10 paces down the road :P

Limiting myself to arguing from an Athiest view point may be difficult, but I'll give it a go, huh? No God - so I'm not even allowed to propose that the universe was created by a flock of rubber ducks who beckoned it into existance since the ducks would be god :/

So... how about... there's a yet undiscovered scientific reaction in which large quantities of matter are produced from nothingness. I call it ... the big fart. Disprove it - immediately :)

Btw - what's the argument about again? :D

Where to start? I'm not even going to bother with The Doors Corporation's comment. It's pointless and ignorant. In response to your "question" about Fundamentalist Christians, no Fundamentalist Christian's are not the only ones with a "ticket to heaven" to put it crassly. But, if a Christian is defined as a follower of Christ, who in the only written record we have that can even be claimed as his said that everything in the Bible was absolutely true (Matthew 5:18), how can a Christian (assuming a degree of knowledge about said book) deny Creation?

And in response to the other half of your argument, don't be stupid. Thinking before I write doesn't damage my writing. Disprove your Big Fart? I already did, one of the primary scientific principles is that what you said is impossible. And more importantly, as for my attempt to draw an atheist<->evolutionism picture, the big problem with that is that by the time of your post, I was on a different topic. But as long as you bring it up again, tell me, since you had to limit yourself to an atheistic, evolutionary premise what else do you have? It's what I have asked you since the first post on this thread. If not evolution, then what? If God didn't make it, it had to come from somewhere, didn't it?

Where to start? I'm not even going to bother with The Doors Corporation's comment. It's pointless and ignorant. In response to your "question" about Fundamentalist Christians, no Fundamentalist Christian's are not the only ones with a "ticket to heaven" to put it crassly. But, if a Christian is defined as a follower of Christ, who in the only written record we have that can even be claimed as his said that everything in the Bible was absolutely true (Matthew 5:18), how can a Christian (assuming a degree of knowledge about said book) deny Creation?

But is a Fundamentalist Christian not by definition someone who follows the writings of the bible to the letter (of course this doesn't speak of how to deal with differing interpretations which allow for a lot of leeway - I bet some people have even tried to "interpret" some hidden message about aliens).

You've been drawing arbitrary lines again, haven't you! Who decided that "not believing in Creationism" means "no ticket", and yet... "you're allowed to forget some of the rest" means you do go? ('caus not only fundamentalists go to heaven?). You did, didn't you? Naughty :)

Did you not like my big fart scientific theory or something? :/

I already did, one of the primary scientific principles is that what you said is impossible.

From your current understanding of science - there will almost certainly be many discoveries in the future which will open doors to things that seem to be impossible at present, as well as discoveries that contradict current theories. So... no. Anything is possible.

But as long as you bring it up again, tell me, since you had to limit yourself to an atheistic, evolutionary premise what else do you have? It's what I have asked you since the first post on this thread. If not evolution, then what? If God didn't make it, it had to come from somewhere, didn't it?

Instead of evolution... I don't know - how about... life was brought to this planet by a race of aliens (who weren't gods - just more technically advanced beings).

Anyway - I thought the point was that you were saying that all athiests *had to* agree on evolutionism since they obviously by definition don't believe on creationism, and ... nothing else made sense... but Athiests don't believe in god. That is it - it does not limit them to believing in evolutionism.

:( but if this was a World where no-one beleived in God then every one here would go to Hell and where's the fun in that

More room in Heaven for you and me I say.

:( but if this was a World where no-one beleived in God then every one here would go to Hell and where's the fun in that
Your god is a asshole then. There is no reason for me to worship a monster.

You've been drawing arbitrary lines again, haven't you! Who decided that "not believing in Creationism" means "no ticket", and yet... "you're allowed to forget some of the rest" means you do go? ('caus not only fundamentalists go to heaven?). You did, didn't you? Naughty :)

If I understand this part correctly, which took some time (as a person used to more organized writing, this paragraph was very challenging), you accuse me of contradicting myself by saying that a belief and understanding in Christ requires a belief in a literal reading of the Bible, while I say that fundamnetalism is not necessary to be saved, while we accept fundamentalism as being a literal reading, right? Ok, here we go, to give a general, not-sect definition of salvation, a saved person is one who places their faith in Jesus Christ and his vicarious death to absorb the punishment of sin for those who accept it. Given this, how much theological refinement does the newly saved Christian generally have? The average convert does not understand every nuance of the Bible, and anyone who claims to needs to take another look at it. Now then, if we watch our theoretical convert (it's a nice neutral word, not one that gets people excited), and he never opens a Bible all the rest of his life. Does that mean he is no longer saved? God forbid! If he could lose his salvation, it would mean that Christ's sacrifice was not enough to cover his sins the first time, and our theoretical convert was so bad that he needs a "second coat" as it were. But has our theoretical convert ever learned more about the Bible? Or what God desires of him? The answer to those is also no. And so, after being saved, he might delve into (or stay in) beliefs and groups that are against the Bible and God, without ever knowing it. To put it another way, how many people have read all the documents left by the founders of their country? Does that make them any less of a citizen? And what about your parents? Have you read everything they wrote? Does that make you any less their child? And what if you have? Does going against what they wrote make you less their child? Still the answer is no. Once you are born into the group, you're a member for life. And this is where the analogy, as all analogies do, becomes complicated. No two things are exactly alike, so analogies are never perfect. Some people would tell you that the intentionally disobedient have a lower standing in heaven as a punishment. Some would tell you that God would punish them on this Earth. I for one am not comfortable telling God what to do, especially when there's no evidence to support a position. But, as for fundamentalism itself, wouldn't the most fundamentalist people be the apostles, who were actually there? And yet, one of them was not a Christian (Judas). And so it is today. There are many with great understanding who are not truly Christians, and there are many with little understanding that are. The Bible itself raises that point "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me." (Matthew 7:22-23).

As for the science part, saying that one day we will discover a way around one of the primary laws is a cheap way out. Try talking to, or reading some real scientists on the matter. I've never met (or read) one who was willing to try saying something like that, even when it's the easiest way out (including Stephen Hawking, for that matter). The science profession is fairly stingy with the word law. And tends not to use it unless they are absolutely certain. And that is one of the longest standing laws.

Your god is a asshole then. There is no reason for me to worship a monster.

Normally, I would ignore a post like this, but I feel compelled on this one. You attack God because he is willing to send people to hell, right? At what point did things change so drastically that God began to owe us something? If you had a pet, and it attacked you viciously (I'm talking about sinking it's teeth in and drawing blood), over and over again, what would you do? Would you reward it or punish it? What if it killed a person? Would you put the animal down (a dumb question, if it kills a person, the law will put it down for you once it finds out). What if you had created the pet? And what if the pet was like your own little Mini-me? Something you could talk to and love. How would you feel when your Mini-me killed someone and rejected you, even if he knew the consequences were punishment, because his rejection doesn't weaken you in the slightest. Now put it on a larger scale. If we accept Jesus Christ as God, a horde of his own creations swarmed over him and tried to kill him. And after all that, he didn't give us what we deserve and cast us all into eternal punishment, but rather used the very gravest of our misdeeds to allow us to be absolved of all punishment. Would you do that for your pet?

Normally, I would ignore a post like this, but I feel compelled on this one. You attack God because he is willing to send people to hell, right? At what point did things change so drastically that God began to owe us something? If you had a pet, and it attacked you viciously (I'm talking about sinking it's teeth in and drawing blood), over and over again, what would you do? Would you reward it or punish it? What if it killed a person? Would you put the animal down (a dumb question, if it kills a person, the law will put it down for you once it finds out). What if you had created the pet? And what if the pet was like your own little Mini-me? Something you could talk to and love. How would you feel when your Mini-me killed someone and rejected you, even if he knew the consequences were punishment, because his rejection doesn't weaken you in the slightest. Now put it on a larger scale. If we accept Jesus Christ as God, a horde of his own creations swarmed over him and tried to kill him. And after all that, he didn't give us what we deserve and cast us all into eternal punishment, but rather used the very gravest of our misdeeds to allow us to be absolved of all punishment. Would you do that for your pet?
Our misdeeds?
Their would be a better word. I never agreed with all the "our"s.
What if we led a moral life, but didn't accept Christ as our saviour? Would we still be damned?
I believe that is what CtulhuFhtagn may have been referring to, albeit in a rather unkind manner.

Whoa! You go Machiavellian Origin, it took me a while to see you were (somewhat?) pro-Christian too. Sorry about the pointless ignorance, but I've become pretty sarcastic because people make general accusations about my faith and will not back them up with fact. So I have decided to act just like them and make fun of my faith. So far, I like the way you think. Even though

If we accept Jesus Christ as God, a horde of his own creations swarmed over him and tried to kill him. And after all that, he didn't give us what we deserve and cast us all into eternal punishment, but rather used the very gravest of our misdeeds to allow us to be absolved of all punishment. Would you do that for your pet?
confused me

Our misdeeds?
Their would be a better word. I never agreed with all the "our"s.
What if we led a moral life, but didn't accept Christ as our saviour? Would we still be damned?
I believe that is what CtulhuFhtagn may have been referring to, albeit in a rather unkind manner.

As best as I can comprehend it, whether you live a moral life or not, you will not have eternal life without accepting Jesus Christ as saviour..

As best as I can comprehend it, whether you live a moral life or not, you will not have eternal life without accepting Jesus Christ as saviour..
Can you please provide evidence for that statement?

Can you please prove me wrong? <-- Please do not take that as a cocky, ignorant, or rude question. I am asking humbly. Yeah humility.


John 3:16 (New International Version)
16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


John 14:23 (NIV)
Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

(long to read, but deals with living a moral life :gundge: )

Matthew 19:16-24
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” 18“Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’[d] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]”20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” 21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

At what point did things change so drastically that God began to owe us something?Moral book-keeping is fun, isn't it? The nonexistence of your god is unaffected by your rhetoric, but even so, your arguments don't make the slightest micron of sense. If I were created, I would owe the creator nothing unless I was satisfied with my lot. If the bitch wants to be an attention-seeking ****, I'd rather have been left in undisturbed oblivion. I refuse to have anything to do with a god who insists upon being admired all the time. I can think of some amazingly poor parents who have this mentality.

If you had a pet, and it attacked you viciously (I'm talking about sinking it's teeth in and drawing blood), over and over again, what would you do? Would you reward it or punish it?How many dogs have you owned? A dog who attacks you in this way is probably either in pain or being mistreated. In any event, I don't approve of moral book-keeping because if we took an eye for an eye, we'd all be blind. If you don't want your dog to bite you, try some obedience training. Also, make quite certain that he sleeps in the same room as you because the attack might be a failure to recognize you as a packmate, and sharing sleeping environs can be an excellent aid in building this important bond.

What if it killed a person? Would you put the animal down (a dumb question, if it kills a person, the law will put it down for you once it finds out). No. I'd probably cling to him pathetically while I spend the next four days crying my eyes out. I'm actually quite serious. I am very emotionally attached to my animals, and I love them as I would love my own children, possibly more.

What if you had created the pet? And what if the pet was like your own little Mini-me? Something you could talk to and love. How would you feel when your Mini-me killed someone and rejected you, even if he knew the consequences were punishment, because his rejection doesn't weaken you in the slightest.Well, creating a Mini-me is already a pretty moronic thing to do. That creates expectations, probably unfair ones. Parents who think of their children as a "mini-me" rather than people in their own right generally don't turn out to be particularly good parents. What happens when your Mini-me doesn't turn out to be quite what you wanted? In truth, you never wanted to raise a child. You just wanted to make a little puppet, and you threw it away because it wouldn't dance when you pulled its strings. It's no wonder that the kid hates you.

Now put it on a larger scale. If we accept Jesus Christ as God, a horde of his own creations swarmed over him and tried to kill him. And after all that, he didn't give us what we deserve and cast us all into eternal punishment, but rather used the very gravest of our misdeeds to allow us to be absolved of all punishment. Would you do that for your pet?Most certainly.

I own a beagle/basset mix and a cat whose last purebred ancestor probably died about a century ago. The dog wandered into my yard, and the cat had been abandoned at the vet's and was adopted when I went to get Scruffy her shots. They both have their own distinctive personalities, and they spend more time sleeping in my bed than I do. They are well-behaved because I treat them well and frequently assert my authority.

As for the science part, saying that one day we will discover a way around one of the primary laws is a cheap way out. Try talking to, or reading some real scientists on the matter. I've never met (or read) one who was willing to try saying something like that, even when it's the easiest way out (including Stephen Hawking, for that matter). The science profession is fairly stingy with the word law. And tends not to use it unless they are absolutely certain. And that is one of the longest standing laws.Actually, they don't make laws anymore. Nowadays, everything is a theory. Newton's theories are called laws for one reason and one reason only: timing.

Also, be wary of Creationist apologists. They're generally very dishonest and selective.

Can you please prove me wrong? <-- Please do not take that as a cocky, ignorant, or rude question. I am asking humbly. Yeah humility.


John 3:16 (New International Version)
16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


John 14:23 (NIV)
Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

(long to read, but deals with living a moral life :gundge: )

Matthew 19:16-24
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” 18“Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’[d] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]”20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” 21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”Hmmm, now who was the last person to say "Imagine no possessions?"

In any event, I invite you to Kiss Hank's Ass! http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv

If your parents are dishonorable, what do you do? Do you think that people who work hard to pay for the education they need for one of those high-income jobs are of inferior character to a homeless bum? Should self-hating people love their neighbors as they love themselves?

Also, I was taught that it is possible that he was referring to a stout rope that shares a name with camel.

This is an unusual debate to be having.

First of all, who I am so you can judge me based on my beliefs (hey its okay we all do it). I am non-Christian Agnostic (akin to saying, I dunno), though I sympathize with the philosophical underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian heritage and Buddhist Philosophies (particulary Theravada emphasis on individualistic wisdom and Zen Buddhism emphasis on enlightenment as attainable in the immediate life). I emphasize with these ideas, I am by no means a believer or practitioner.

Anyway this is a funny debate to be having for the following reasons:

Most of the people on this board tend to be moderate whatevers, whenever they debate they try to convince the other side through finding common ground and coming up with a rational or preferable answer. The spiritual and scientific are struggling to convince the other side, some even recognize the potential for larger overlaps (Christians who accept evolution as sound scientific theory for instance).

There is a problem with this of course, religion is not some trite topic. It is sadly a zero-sum game. Simply put, if one side is right, then the other side is deadly wrong.

Many of you claim to be tolerant, and while you allow the other person to go off on whatever belief they're espouting, how attentively are you listening and willing to change? I wonder sometimes, are you all just waiting for your turn to speak?

Do we all have our own ideas about the world, and simply look to authority sources to verify our ideas? How often do our ideas form from proof, and not ideas that seek proof?

This is very interesting to note in a religious debate. Simply put, you are either tolerant to all beliefs in which case your own are suspect to being denied by yourself, or you're doggedly intolerant no matter how hard you try to not appear as such.

Not to say there is anything wrong with this, I believe it to be a mistake to take away some sort of normative sense of what I'm trying to say.

All I'm pointing out is that religion has no middle ground, if you are right as many of you believe you are, then no other faith has any validity.

But that isn't the case many of you would say, you would claim you are tolerant and do hold the chance that other people are possibly right. In fact, many of you think this is the better way to live.

If in fact this occurs at some level, perhaps subsconcious even, then at some level it is within your nature to reject the very precepts of your faith. When we strive to be tolerant, we reject that which makes us who we are, and we do so to attain some sort of perceived higher knowledge or authority.

Everyone at some level rejects their faith.

This is not some victory nod to the other side, in fact this should be encouraging. Everyone I've spoken to about the subject have lead me to believe there is some sort of consensus about faith and religion.

I have struggled against faith until it dawned upon me that, like any institution, is capable of helping mankind achieve some end. It came to me when I struggled to understand faith at least within my small circle of friends.

People are motivated by faith not because of thousand year old scriptures, but rather by the community and the spirit of religion. Often there is a false belief that without faith creates people that yield to immorality, but this is not necessarily the case.

In fact, people motivated to do goodworks are motivated by the plight of their fellow man as often as they are by divine inspiration.

Thousands of years of religion has not destroyed the world. Nor has the proliferation of secular scientific reason and alternative secular morals.

The world will exist as it exists, and these forces of faith and secularism will constantly struggle, until we realize we are all motivated by a desire to improve the lot of mankind.

From that point on, each faith becomes a nuance of the same human tradition.
-EL Kim

The believers think they're helping poor lost souls, or getting brownie points with an invisible creature that brings us stuff like tsunamis and Stalin.

The unbelievers are usually just having fun, though sometimes they're motivated by pity and optimism, thinking they can make a superstitious savage start thinking rationally.

That sounds about right.

Hmmm, now who was the last person to say "Imagine no possessions?"

In any event, I invite you to Kiss Hank's Ass! http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv

More Hankisms! (http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Ginohn/cetera/hankisms.html)

As for the science part, saying that one day we will discover a way around one of the primary laws is a cheap way out.

Don't you mean to say the responsible way out? The concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing, good to the last drop God was designed by simple minded people as a cheap way out for other simple minded people. It doesn't explain anything unless you say "well God is infinite."

A terrible notion of a world without diversity

Diversity doesn't do you any good without an overall unity to keep the diverse together.

As for the science part, saying that one day we will discover a way around one of the primary laws is a cheap way out.

And... saying you have a book written X years ago which tells you it all - and is the whole and absolute truth - seems a cheap way out to me :P

I wasn't saying we *will* make such a discovery, but we might (whereas you want me to say that we definitately won't, and so... evolution is the only other sensible possibility besides creationism).

If I understand this part correctly, which took some time

Ok. I'll try and explain what I meant a bit better:

1. I said that not people who call themselves Christians believe in creationism
2. You said they weren't christians
3. I said "So only those who believe the bible word-for-word are Christians (and hence going to heaven" (i.e. only fundamentalists)
4. You said that "no - don't be silly - but all true Christians should believe in creationism - it's on page 1!" :)

So - what I was asking was... who has decided where to draw the line - this one: "what is necessary to get into heaven or be accepted as a Christian?".

Who decided that a belief in creationism was one of those necessities (but other details weren't?). You did. It's not written in the bible, is it? You decided it - through your reasoning. Surely it's not your place to say? :)

Anyway - since it (bible) doesn't state many things in clear unambiguous language, and is quite clearly open to interpretation, then wouldn't you say that... all "Christians" will end up believing in slightly different things?

If this is so, then... surely it's just like putting a lot of time into buying a gift, but ending up disappointing the receiver - i.e. "it's the thought that counts" - the intention (to be a good and kind person?).

And really... that is pretty much my take on religion. I think a list of rules is never going to account for every situation, and will miss some situations and end up working against those it is meant to protect. I basically think good/bad/right/wrong needs a bit of thought behind it. I don't think religion is necessary a bad thing tho' - it does usually provide a lot of good framework for a lot widely-held morals and probably helps some kids who would otherwise be a bit wild figure right from wrong ( even tho' I may disagree with a few of them :) ).

All right, I wrote a big long answer, and then my computer crashed, so here it is in brief.

Bill Mutz: Get over it. I have had dogs all my life, they went to obedience school and are very well behaved. They don't sleep in my room, but on my bed. I also have cats, rabbits, sheep, and a goat. So take whatever kind of animals are great stuff you had to throw in and forget it. I've got you beat. And seriously man, "I love them as I would love my own children, possibly more."? If you don't think that attitued will produce seriously screwed up kids, go ahead and try it.

Onawa (and Prrrrk in one post): It is not about proof or falsehood. It is about faith. Has anyone here actually seen all of the scientific laws physically proven in front of them? Until you do, you're accepting at least some of them on faith. You are putting your trust in a man (and probably just a book by or about the man, for that matter) who said he saw it. So does the Christian. The difference being that the Christian has to also accept that the book is the end-all, while the scientist has to accept (if we follow everyone's science arguments here) that nothing they have said, given enough time is necessarily true. Which is harder to say? "This is what I believe, now and forever", or "This is what I believe, at least for now."

Prrrrk (your last post): Did you read my entire last post? I thought I had sufficiently answered your question. But here we go again. Salvation, as Biblically defined, is an irreversible point. Irregardless of what the person goes on to do or believe, they are still saved. And you are right, there are many things not stated in clear and unambiguous language. Personally, I can't find any unclearness in the words "God created ____, God created ____, God created ____, etc."

Everyone: There have been a lot of posts about living a moral life. The faulty assumption is that you can. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10 And, just to give one point of the law that catches just about everyone, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28 The point being that no one can live a truly moral life. However, that need is waived by Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the fashion of men, and being found in fashion as a man, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. The idea being that this death was vicarious, taking the sins of all people past, present, and future upon himself, that any who would accept the gift of this sacrifice would no longer have to worry about their failures. Unfortunately, many since then have taken this as a license to commit all manner of misdeeds, which the multitude of threads dealing with the hipocrisy of the Christian illustrates. Another way to think of it is if the government cleared you of all legal restrictions. You could rob and steal and murder. But should you?

Than these "Christians" don't believe the Bible. Genesis 1 clearly states that God created everything. I like to keep a firm view on both sides.
Doesn't Genisis contradict itself at least twice?

So take whatever kind of animals are great stuff you had to throw in and forget it. I've got you beat.Stop fucking your high horse, and either offer functional analogies or admit that you're worshipping a tremendous dick. If you don't know how to craft a decent analogy, I'll gladly teach you how. In my opinion, you're worshipping an enourmous asshat, and in doing so, you express approval of his behavior. Fortunately, said asshat doesn't even exist, so the only person left to judge is you. The question remains, though: who is the bigger asshat? The asshat or the asshat who follows him?

All banter aside, though, you don't earn your high horse license until you've actually provided a rebuttal to my arguments. Playing dodgeball will get you nowhere with me, and being an ass is only going to serve to get you written off as a world-class loser. This has absolutely nothing to do with who has more pets. If that's the only arena in which you think you can win, go ahead and brag on about it. I don't get along well with people because I have a hearing disorder that makes it difficult for me to filter out background noise, so if I'm around more than one person at a time, all I hear is incomprehensible noise. Therefore, it is a fact that I care for my pets more than I would care for my own kids. Sometimes, they're the only company I've got, so I've developed a potentially unhealthy attachment to them. I wasn't bragging about it or saying that makes me oh-so-glorious. I was merely stating a fact, and its attachment to my main point is tenuous.

Everyone: There have been a lot of posts about living a moral life. The faulty assumption is that you can. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10 And, just to give one point of the law that catches just about everyone, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."Actually, I know several couples who are living happily in open relationships. They are technically guilty of "adultery," but it has served more to enrich their relationships than to damage them. You may call it immoral, but if you tried to lecture them, they'd probably kick your ass, and I'd help them. Scratch that; they're pacifists and wouldn't harm a hair on a dog's ass.

Matthew 5:28 The point being that no one can live a truly moral life.It depends entirely upon your morals.

However, that need is waived by Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the fashion of men, and being found in fashion as a man, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. The idea being that this death was vicarious, taking the sins of all people past, present, and future upon himself, that any who would accept the gift of this sacrifice would no longer have to worry about their failures. Unfortunately, many since then have taken this as a license to commit all manner of misdeeds, which the multitude of threads dealing with the hipocrisy of the Christian illustrates.This is why I think that Christian morality is an oxymoron. Their pretense of morality is completely self-serving, and I generally find them to be cynical, rude, and annoying.

Another way to think of it is if the government cleared you of all legal restrictions. You could rob and steal and murder. But should you?Generally not, and since the government has made itself obsolete, it must be replaced if we're to protect our own asses. I don't have any personal resentment for people who steal or murder (except insofar as it affects me), but something needs to be done to prevent them from stealing and murdering. Focusing on punishing people for the crime is counter-productive. The focus should be on preventing the crimes from occuring in the first place, moral-book-keeping-disguised-as-justice be damned. Also, the whole point of them being crimes is to keep our lives from being fucking miserable. If a law is there for no reason other than to give some imaginary skyman tingly feelings in his penis, I don't care for it.

The believers think they're helping poor lost souls, or getting brownie points with an invisible creature that brings us stuff like tsunamis and Stalin.

The unbelievers are usually just having fun, though sometimes they're motivated by pity and optimism, thinking they can make a superstitious savage start thinking rationally.

and you are standing where in this battle between the evils!!!!???? or what you will!!!

Probably, the best thing to do here is to agree to disagree and leave it at that. We're honestly not going anywhere here, so there is no real point.

Doesn't Genisis contradict itself at least twice?

and you found this where?? certianlly NOT in genisis!! such rehtorical and undeserving waste if i ever heard it!!

Probably, the best thing to do here is to agree to disagree and leave it at that. We're honestly not going anywhere here, so there is no real point.

very true but someone has to get the real point across!!! and deemed rightly so!!

Onawa (and Prrrrk in one post): It is not about proof or falsehood. It is about faith. Has anyone here actually seen all of the scientific laws physically proven in front of them? Until you do, you're accepting at least some of them on faith.

Nono. I'm not saying that such a viewpoint is my own - I'm saying it is possible that it could be true - i.e. that it's not impossible. I just didn't think you should be saying "Athiests must believe in evolution since they can't believe in creationism, and so evolution is the only possible thing left" - I don't agree - I think there's scope for plenty of other possibilities.

And you are right, there are many things not stated in clear and unambiguous language. Personally, I can't find any unclearness in the words "God created ____, God created ____, God created ____, etc."

Actually interpretation allows for a lot of ambiguity in even this. People will say "is this meant to be taken literally? Surely not!" - and so you will have many Christians who believe in Evolution.

Probably, the best thing to do here is to agree to disagree and leave it at that. We're honestly not going anywhere here, so there is no real point.

Yes, but the impression I get is that he thinks he can argue his side (what that is, I'm not sure, but hey - I'm arguing for the fun of it) - whereas I think it's going to drop down to faith in the end ( which can't really be discussed logically :) )

Doesn't Genisis contradict itself at least twice? Mind if I ask what two points you had in mind (not saying you are wrong, just wondering what you had in mind)?

Bill Mutz: Wow Bill. You sure showed me there. Your high-class, witty banter (great use of the word "asshat" by the way) has convinced me of the error of my ways. Look. I could go through your new offensive, stating a counter to everything you said, and you'd come right back and tell me how everything I said was wrong. So, let's strike on a compromise. You hate the point I'm arguing, so anything I say has to be misguided and prejudiced. I hate talking to people who feel that a word like "asshat" strengthens their point. So let's stop arguing. The only thing that seems to have come from our argument so far is that you have gotten angry, attacked me for the very things other opponents are complimenting me on in other boards, and I am getting bogged down with pointless rebuttals to your comments.

Prrrrk: I've been going back through my posts so far, to see where this all started. I think you misread me somewhere. My original post was I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm guessing those pushing atheism support evolution. Show of hands, anybody agree, disagree? But before you take offense, I think I misread your stuff too. If this clears things up, I think a lot of our back and forth revolves around your thinking that I'm trying to pin atheists to evolution, and say that a non-literal interpretation brings hellfire. I do have a tendency to simplify my sentences by dropping implications, so let's try this again. Would you agree that evolution is the prevalent view among atheists? And would you agree to the next statement we have gone back and forth on Than these "Christians" don't believe the Bible. (and I'll admit, re-reading it, that was a bad place for the quotation marks) if I throw in words I felt were implied, like "literally"? And by the way, did you mean me in this comment?
the impression I get is that he thinks he can argue his sideIf so, you've been making some assumptions.

In any case, if I knew this would turn into a multi-day argument over word use, I would have left this topic alone. I should have known better.

Can you please prove me wrong? <-- Please do not take that as a cocky, ignorant, or rude question. I am asking humbly. Yeah humility.


John 3:16 (New International Version)
16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


John 14:23 (NIV)
Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

(long to read, but deals with living a moral life :gundge: )

Matthew 19:16-24
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” 18“Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’[d] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]”20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” 21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Ahem. Just quoting the Bible is not evidence, especially not from the NT that only provides some folks' opinions. Just give me anything out of the REAL WORLD that witnesses can attest. Or has God spoken to you personally before while you recorded it?

You hate the point I'm arguing, so anything I say has to be misguided and prejudiced.I've actually had many intelligent and civil discussions with people who refer to themselves as Christians. In fact, I regularly have conversations with a person who is an admitted biblical literalist and generally find him to be very humble, intelligent, and charming in spite of being uncompromising in his views and referring to my homosexuality as "disgusting."

I hate talking to people who feel that a word like "asshat" strengthens their point.And I hate talking to people who think that a word like "asshat" either strengthens or weakens a person's point.

So let's stop arguing.We stopped arguing anything related to the topic of discussion a couple of posts back. You held humanity's relationship with a creator as analogous to a person who owns a pet whom he designed as a "Mini-me" (and punishes for having ideas and a personality of its own), you compared God throwing people into a volcano for not admiring him all the time (or some like poppycock) to a person having his dog euthanized after it has attacked him (automatically blaming it ENTIRELY on the dog, and let's not even get into the fact that what your god is doing is more analogous to a person euthanizing a dog who seems indifferent to him), and then I told you why I don't consider these remarkably "divine" qualities. I also told you that I refused to have anything to do with a god who insists that it's my sole purpose in life to admire him all the time. In your reply, you got pissed off and went into a tirade about how you are better at raising animals than I am, ending it with "I've got you beat" (which I will not believe you didn't know was provocative rhetoric that will ALWAYS incite anger). You still haven't earned your high horse license, sir, so come off it. I got rather blunt with you because you disrespected me, and speaking cynically of the relationship I have with my animals without even wondering if there could be a special reason for it and knowing that I was likely to be just a bit emotional about the subject was more than a little callus.

The only thing that seems to have come from our argument so far is that you have gotten angry, attacked me for the very things other opponents are complimenting me on in other boards, and I am getting bogged down with pointless rebuttals to your comments.You haven't even delivered a rebuttal, you dolt.

Mind if I ask what two points you had in mind (not saying you are wrong, just wondering what you had in mind)?There are two different stories for the Creation and two different stories for the Flood. These are the two contradictions most commonly referenced in Genesis.

I got rather blunt with you because you disrespected me, and speaking cynically of the relationship I have with my animals without even wondering if there could be a special reason for it and knowing that I was likely to be just a bit emotional about the subject was more than a little callus.How about we pass the looking glass over your role in this Bill? In case you haven't noticed, I'm not having this discussion with anybody else. I respond to the questions about a moral life with the simple illustration of an angry pet, and the cultural buzz-term of a "Mini-me" (things broad audiences understand). You respond with an attack on the entire faith If the bitch wants to be an attention-seeking ****, I'd rather have been left in undisturbed oblivion., on my ability to raise or care for animalsHow many dogs have you owned? A dog who attacks you in this way is probably either in pain or being mistreated. In any event, I don't approve of moral book-keeping because if we took an eye for an eye, we'd all be blind. If you don't want your dog to bite you, try some obedience training. Also, make quite certain that he sleeps in the same room as you because the attack might be a failure to recognize you as a packmate, and sharing sleeping environs can be an excellent aid in building this important bond., and on my ability to have a non-scarred kid What happens when your Mini-me doesn't turn out to be quite what you wanted? In truth, you never wanted to raise a child. You just wanted to make a little puppet, and you threw it away because it wouldn't dance when you pulled its strings. It's no wonder that the kid hates you.Oddly enough, you weren't my favorite person after that. So I respond to that whole message by saying that I have raised a lot more animals than you, and already do your suggestions. I also say that (and I'll admit it, assuming that your previous comments were due to the kind of "animals-are-great, people-should-burn" attitude I've run into far too much lately) I have a lot more experience with animals, so "I've got you beat" as in I know more about raising healthy animals. And I closed by saying, in response to your child-rearing statements, that the attitudeI am very emotionally attached to my animals, and I love them as I would love my own children, possibly more. would also mess with a kid's mind. Every post in the chain from there goes downhill. I still can't find any way to read your next post as anything but an angry tirade, and my response to you reflected that in being more than a little sarcastic. My point being this, have you ever heard it said that when we accuse someone of something, we are guilty of the same ourselves? Whether you agree with me or not, I think this whole discussion is a fairly good example of it. What has struck me reading these posts is that you're riding a fairly high horse yourself. You have accused me (just as blindly as I accused you of being a freakish-type animal lover) of being the holier-than-thou, hypocritical "asshat." Well guess what Bill, some of my best friends are gay. I have two cousins (about 7 years apart age-wise) who have a father, a mother, a step-father, and a step-mother. And there parents were never divorced. On my father's side of the family, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who can name a person in the Bible beyond God. And you know what, I don't go around telling them that they're stupid or evil. I don't stand around calling down hellfire on them. I don't mock them for their beliefs (which is exactly what you have done to me, by the way). I live a moral life because I know it is right. And I am the person that makes it hard on them because they know I have something that they don't. I am the person that people go out of there way to help, and I am the person that no one believes aynthing bad that they hear about. And you know what else Bill, the comments you got out of me earlier are a little out of character, because you got me at a really bad time (including a death in the family and financial troubles that are going to keep me out of school for at least a year). So you know what, I really don't care anymore. If you want to keep arguing, go ahead. Either way I'm done.

There are two different stories for the Creation and two different stories for the Flood. These are the two contradictions most commonly referenced in Genesis.

Mind if I ask for something a little more specific (at least specific chapters)? Maybe it's just that I'm tired, but I'm having the hardest time figuring out what you mean.

I find the Theist vs. Atheist argument as quite inane. It is simply an argument between faith and logic. One who is based in faith cannot argue in terms of logic. Likewise, people based in logic can only argue in terms of logic, therefore ill equipped to argue against faith.
btw, by 'logic-based people' I simply mean that it is what Atheists tend to be, not that all logic-based people ARE atheists.
The argument always follows the same basic structure as follows:
f = faith-based person L = logic-based person

f - god exists
L - god does not exist, what is your proof of it's existence?
f - my (insert religion) bible says so, (insert scripture)
L - That is just a book, written by fallible men. It is just a story. Don't use authoritative texts to argue. Use provable facts, logic, real knowledge.
f - well, what proof do you have that god does not exist?
L - there is no benevolent god, b/c there is suffering in the world. The big bang. It would just appear to us and tell us it's will if it did exist. If god exists, what created god? I have no empirical evidence of god, so I cannot know it exists. (insert some other atheistic "argument")
f - you cannot PROVE it does not exist.
L - you cannot PROVE it does exist
f - god exists
L - god does not exist

THE END

Mind if I ask for something a little more specific (at least specific chapters)? Maybe it's just that I'm tired, but I'm having the hardest time figuring out what you mean.The two Flood stories are interwoven with one another, it's pretty easy to pick them out. For example, in one version Noah sends a raven, in the other he sends a dove. I believe the two Creation stories are fairly close to each other. They might even be in the same chapter, but I'm not sure. Read throught the first few chapters of Genesis and you should come across the two versions.

LMAO...this brings back some funny memories.

I used to participate in these types of discussions all the time...and reading this thread, the same old tried and true arguments used by both sides that I've seen 100 times over are being paraded out to be riduculed and dismissed.

There is no conclusive evidence that there IS a "God" or "Gods"
There is no conclusive evidence that there ISN'T a "God" or "Gods"

Sooner or later...you will KNOW...so until then, why fret about it?

Live well...God wouldn't rig the game so you couldn't win...

I've actually had many intelligent and civil discussions with people who refer to themselves as Christians. In fact, I regularly have conversations with a person who is an admitted biblical literalist and generally find him to be very humble, intelligent, and charming in spite of being uncompromising in his views and referring to my homosexuality as "disgusting."

Well - that's what I dislike about Christianity (or at least those followers of the more right-wing/fundamentalist variety).

Basically... the act involved with homosexuality - I find repugnant.

However, I realise that people are different, and I respect those differences - and... if that makes some people happy (without making others unhappy), then let it be - I'm happy for them.

From the news I hear many quotes from the US saying that "gay marriage would undermine American family values", but again... I don't see how this works. It's not as if saying "you can't get married" will make these people suddenly become "ungay" and run off to form a "normal" family (and the usual "same-sex parents are bad for kids" argument gets trumped by the "what about single parents" argument). In my view, all they're doing by denying these people the opportunity of marriage is... making them unhappy - which is bad.

I guess this whole argument is currently sitting on the "is it biological" argument - and... I think it is. I am very open-minded to different things, but... there's no way I could ever be persuaded to "not be straight" because I'm so utterly ingrained against the whole idea of homosexuality in my nature.

So - I choose to think of myself as somewhere in the more agnostic region because I view this whole "hate people simply because of the way they were made" side of Christianity (but this comes back to the biological issue, doesn't it?)

The two Flood stories are interwoven with one another, it's pretty easy to pick them out. For example, in one version Noah sends a raven, in the other he sends a dove. I believe the two Creation stories are fairly close to each other. They might even be in the same chapter, but I'm not sure. Read throught the first few chapters of Genesis and you should come across the two versions.I think the problem I was having last night is that I wasn't reading that as contradictions. Unfortunately, now that I know what you mean, I still don't (unless I'm still looking in the same spot). I read the two things you're saying more as (using the flood example) "in the seventeenth month, the ark struck land. Now back in the tenth month, they were starting to see evdence of land, so they let out a raven, which never came back. After giving it time to come back though, they let out a dove. Which came back. So they let it out again, and it came back with a twig. So they let it out again, and it didn't come back. Waiting a little longer to play it safe (after all, who really wants to get those animals back in if they're wrong?), he waited a little longer, and everybody left the ark two months after his birthday." I don't know if this helps you or not, but that's how I read it anyway. More of a "this is how it turn's out, and this is what happens along the way" kind of thing.

I'm too lazy to read the entire thread, so I'm just going to throw my two cents into the ring and hope it is new, useful fuel for discussion.

Somewhere in the first few posts, someone asked if a world where everyone believed the same way would really be so bad. I think it would be a tragic thing, simply because there is no way to "make" everyone have the same beliefs about god and the universe. Humans are too individualistic to tollerate that.

As people grow and mature, it seems natural to question things. Having answers to questions is a beautiful thing! The thing to realize is that not everyone will look in the same place for the answer, not everyone will find the same answer, and not everyone would be satisfied with the same answer. Many paths can lead to the same destination. One's belief (or lack thereof) in religion is a deeply personal thing, and the experience will be different for everyone. If your belief/faith/practice doesn't feel natural and uplifting to you, you are doing something wrong.

How about we pass the looking glass over your role in this Bill?Sounds like a good idea, but you are frightfully poor at it.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not having this discussion with anybody else. I respond to the questions about a moral life with the simple illustration of an angry pet, and the cultural buzz-term of a "Mini-me" (things broad audiences understand).I understood it just fine. It was you who misinterpreted my response.

You respond with an attack on the entire faithWell, I don't see how I would owe anything to a person for no other reason than calling me into existence, all other things neutral. If all he's going to do is demand praise for the feat, my words to him are inevitably going to be what Dr. Frankenstein's creature should have said to Dr. Frankenstein: "fuck you." If "playing God" is wrong, then God is wrong.

, on my ability to raise or care for animals, and on my ability to have a non-scarred kidDon't be a dolt: it wasn't directed at you just because I used the second person perspective to illustrate the problems with your arguments.

that the attitude would also mess with a kid's mind.I have no intention at all of raising children for exactly that reason. I didn't even really have any intention of owning pets, but you don't really plan such things.

I still can't find any way to read your next post as anything but an angry tiradeUmm...duh?

My point being this, have you ever heard it said that when we accuse someone of something, we are guilty of the same ourselves?Not always, but I do think that people who become angry about particular faults they find in others are often just trying to convince themselves that they're not afflicted with the same failing. Sometimes it is a relived conflict that had a traumatic effect on them.

What has struck me reading these posts is that you're riding a fairly high horse yourself.Not really. You just deliberately took everything that I said out of context, and I got pissed off. You came to my door asking for a cup of trouble. You're welcome.

You have accused me (just as blindly as I accused you of being a freakish-type animal lover) of being the holier-than-thou, hypocritical "asshat."I never said "hypocritical," but if the shoe fits, feel free to wear it.

Well guess what Bill, some of my best friends are gay.Watch me not give a shit? The only place I actually mentioned that I was homosexual, which I deem irrelevant to this discussion unless you wish to turn it into an issue, I was explaining that a friend of mine was something of a fag-hating fundamentalist, and this was in response to your accusation that I "hate the point [you're] arguing, so anything [you] say has to be misguided and prejudiced." The problem has nothing to do with your opinions. The problem is that you let your temper flare because I don't like your religion. You take personal offense when someone expresses disapproval of your set of religious beliefs. That's why you took my criticism of your deity's behavior as if it were directed at you.

On my father's side of the family, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who can name a person in the Bible beyond God.On my mom's side of the family, you'd be hard-pressed not to find a name that wasn't lifted directly out out of the Old Testament.

And you know what, I don't go around telling them that they're stupid or evil. I don't stand around calling down hellfire on them. I don't mock them for their beliefs (which is exactly what you have done to me, by the way).No, I just expressed that I hold your particular set of religious beliefs in disfavor. It's not my fault you decided to take it personally.

I live a moral life because I know it is right.I live a "moral" life because 1) I find it easier, and 2) I make more friends.

And I am the person that makes it hard on them because they know I have something that they don't. I am the person that people go out of there way to help, and I am the person that no one believes aynthing bad that they hear about.I'm the weirdo you come to for obscure information and weird favors because everyone else would look at you kinda weird if you didn't spend several hours you don't have explaining the circumstances. I'm also the guy you find yourself opening up to without really knowing why. I'm the guy you can't really say "no" to because you're afraid I might figure out what the word means and stop bending over backwards so readily if you use it too often. I'm the guy you come to with difficult questions because, for some unfathomable reason, you mysteriously find yourself giving me good advice. I'm the guy you are quick to forgive because I don't seem to understand grudges or hard feelings.

And you know what else Bill, the comments you got out of me earlier are a little out of characterDon't mention it.

because you got me at a really bad time (including a death in the family and financial troubles that are going to keep me out of school for at least a year).Drink tea instead of coffee for a while. Tea if you're too stressed, coffee if you're not stressed enough.

So you know what, I really don't care anymore. If you want to keep arguing, go ahead. Either way I'm done.I doubt it.

Christins (like me own self) think that the world would be a better place if everyone was christin.

p.s.no life after death is depressing.
I hope you were joking … you manage to misspell your belief system

that would be nice, in fact a utopia, but we'd have to be REAL christians.

that means sharing everything, loving everyone, and following the teachings of Jesus.

This includes giving up all our possesions. Making us communist hippies basically.

Good point. I am one of those who believe that the devoutly religious are mentally ill and/or amazingly gullible, but if everyone acted like the few real Christians I've met, it would be a very nice world.

Devotskia, us "religious fanatics" look at the world and find actualy facts that back up our faith in the divinity of Christ. (yes imagine that facts that back up Christianity!)
DC -Dingoroonia's Christians (the REAL kind) as understood by me[Joshua Doors]
L- "logic" based persons

DC- Yo, there is a god, homie
L - No, my mom died of cancer and was repeatedly raped by my dad's cousins. No way there is a god
DC- I am sorry, no idea why God would do that, but He loves you so much and wants to help you and change you.
L - Look, I hate God and I have facts that prove there is no God. Look here...exhibit A....B.....evolution.....exhibit C......big bang theory.....exhibit D....E.....F...
DC- Wow you have some interesting points there, but look at this. Exhibit A.....B.....transitional fossils......exhibit C....D.......Jeebus loves you....exhibit R....z...
L- No there is no God, you are wrong
DC- Ok well wanna go to the movies?

I'm an atheist. I am not convinced that there is a god, I have seen no direct evidence so show that a god exists, therefore I cannot bring myself to believe that a god exists. My only beef with religion is fundamentalism and fanaticism. If there were not fanatics and fundamentalists, I would have no issue with religion. I would still see it as a silly belief, but still harmelss; much like non-militant vegetarians.

Devotskia, us "religious fanatics" look at the world and find actualy facts that back up our faith in the divinity of Christ. (yes imagine that facts that back up Christianity!)
DC -Dingoroonia's Christians (the REAL kind) as understood by me[Joshua Doors]
L- "logic" based persons

DC- Yo, there is a god, homie
L - No, my mom died of cancer and was repeatedly raped by my dad's cousins. No way there is a god
DC- I am sorry, no idea why God would do that, but He loves you so much and wants to help you and change you.
L - Look, I hate God and I have facts that prove there is no God. Look here...exhibit A....B.....evolution.....exhibit C......big bang theory.....exhibit D....E.....F...
DC- Wow you have some interesting points there, but look at this. Exhibit A.....B.....transitional fossils......exhibit C....D.......Jeebus loves you....exhibit R....z...
L- No there is no God, you are wrong
DC- Ok well wanna go to the movies?


Point proven, nothing really gets accomplished. Btw, all that evolution/big bang theory, I really don't see that as 'proof' of no god, nor a god existing. If anything, it just denies the abrahamic story of the universe's/man's creation(evident in christianity, judaism, and islam).

Devotskia, us "religious fanatics" look at the world and find actualy facts that back up our faith in the divinity of Christ. (yes imagine that facts that back up Christianity!)
DC -Dingoroonia's Christians (the REAL kind) as understood by me[Joshua Doors]
L- "logic" based persons

DC- Yo, there is a god, homie
L - No, my mom died of cancer and was repeatedly raped by my dad's cousins. No way there is a god
DC- I am sorry, no idea why God would do that, but He loves you so much and wants to help you and change you.
L - Look, I hate God and I have facts that prove there is no God. Look here...exhibit A....B.....evolution.....exhibit C......big bang theory.....exhibit D....E.....F...
DC- Wow you have some interesting points there, but look at this. Exhibit A.....B.....transitional fossils......exhibit C....D.......Jeebus loves you....exhibit R....z...
L- No there is no God, you are wrong
DC- Ok well wanna go to the movies?

Amazing what “rose” colored glasses can do to sterile facts

explain?

Hmm, I think he is referring to the plausibility of transitional fossils and a dead man "loving you" as facts proving the existence of god.

I think the problem I was having last night is that I wasn't reading that as contradictions. Unfortunately, now that I know what you mean, I still don't (unless I'm still looking in the same spot). I read the two things you're saying more as (using the flood example) "in the seventeenth month, the ark struck land. Now back in the tenth month, they were starting to see evdence of land, so they let out a raven, which never came back. After giving it time to come back though, they let out a dove. Which came back. So they let it out again, and it came back with a twig. So they let it out again, and it didn't come back. Waiting a little longer to play it safe (after all, who really wants to get those animals back in if they're wrong?), he waited a little longer, and everybody left the ark two months after his birthday." I don't know if this helps you or not, but that's how I read it anyway. More of a "this is how it turn's out, and this is what happens along the way" kind of thing.

Here's a more comprehensive list of Genesis contradictions (all chapter/verses are in Genesis, of course):

The two contradictory creation accounts. 1:1-2:3, 2:4-25

How long did creation take? 1:3-2:3, 2:4

Were plants created before or after humans? 1:11, 2:4-7

When were the stars made? 1:16-19

From what were the fowls created? 1:20-21

Were humans created before or after the other animals? 1:25-26, 2:7, 2:18-22

How many gods are there? 1:26, 3:22, 11:7

May Adam eat from any tree? 1:29, 2:17

Did Adam die on the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? 2:17, 3:6, 5:5

Is marriage a good thing? 2:18

Doe God have a body? 3:8

Does God know and see everything? 3:8, 4:14, 4:16, 11:5, 18:9, 18:17, 18:20-21, 22:12

Is everyone descended from Adam and Eve? 3:20

Does God respect anyone? 4:4

Does God desire animal sacrifices? 4:4, 8:20-21, 15:9-10

What became of Cain? 4:12

Does God approve of capital punishment? 4:15, 9:6

Was Enoch the sixth or seventh from Adam? 5:3-18

Does everyone die? 5:24

Has anyone ever ascended into heaven? 5:24

How many sons did God have? 6:2

What is the human lifespan? 6:3

Does God repent? 6:6-7

Has there ever been a just or perfect person? 6:9, 7:1

When did Noah enter the ark? 7:7-10, 7:11-13

How many animals of each kind did Noah take into the ark? 6:19-20, 7:2-3, 7:8-9, 7:15

How long did the flood last? 7:17, 7:24, 8:3

Does God want children to die? 7:21-23, 22:2

Did everyone die in the flood? 7:21-23

How long was the ark afloat? 8:4, 8:5

When did the earth dry after the flood? 8:13, 14

Will God curse the earth? 8:21

What kind of animals may we eat? 9:3

Are we punished for the sins of others? 9:20-25

Does God approve of slavery? 9:25-27, 16:8-9, 17:12-13, 17:24, 17:27, 24:35-36, 26:13-14

How many languages were there before the Tower of Babel was built? 10:5, 20, 31, 11:1

Who was the father of Salah? 10:24, 11:12

How old was Abraham when he left Haran? 11:26, 11:32, 12:4

Is God the author of confusion? 11:7

Was Lot Abraham's brother or nephew? 11:27, 12:5, 14:12, 14, 16

Can God be seen? 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 32:30, 35:1, 35:7, 35:9

How long was the Egyptian Captivity? 15:13

How many sons did Abraham have? 16:15, 22:2, 22:12, 25:2

Is circumcision required? 17:7, 17:10, 17:13, 17:19

Is incest forbidden? 17:16, 20:12

How old was Ishmael when he was abandoned by Abraham? 17:25, 21:14-18

Is anything too hard for the Lord? 18:14

Is it OK to take oaths? 21:23-24, 24:2, 9, 31:53, 47:31

Who named Beersheba? 21:31, 26:33

Does God tempt people? 22:2

Does God approve of human sacrifices? 22:2-13

Did Abraham know God's name? 22:14

Was Keturah Abraham's wife or concubine? 25:1

Who was Bashemath's father? 26:34, 36:2-3

Who was Laban's father? 28:5, 29:5

Was Zibeon a Hivite or a Horite? 36:2, 20

Where did Joseph's brothers find their money? 42:27, 29, 35, 42:27, 43:21, 46:21

How old was Benjamin when his clan migrated to Egypt? 44:20, 22

Was Mahli the son of Levi? 46:11

Who were the sons of Benjamin? 46:21

Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin? 46:21

How many were in Jacob's family when they came into Egypt? 47:27

What were the twelve tribes of Israel? 49:3-27

Where was Jacob buried? 50:13

This list comes direct from: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/contra_list.html

And I freely admit some of them are stronger than others as contradictions. If you go to the link, all the citations are linked out, so it's easier to read them and compare them to their "contradicted" verses, which may NOT be in Genesis.