NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't think religious studies as a subject is the same as mythology studies as a subject. Oh well.

religious studies is exactly that, the study of religion. mythology included no?

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?
What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?

It's not really a question of "does god exist or not" as it is the question "does God fulfill his purpose?" What is the purpose of a god? It's something to turn to, something to confide in. When we don't know any further, we turn to a supernatural, omnipotent being for help, even if it's only as a way to support ourselves and give us back our confidence.

Proving god exists wouldn't change anything. It wouldn't make us happier. If we KNOW god exists, we no longer pray and believe out of our own heart, but because we pretty much have to, as anything else would secure us a spot in hell, or something of the like. Proving his existance has no effect on anything at all, other than instill fear in us and remove that last bit of doubt. But if we removed that doubt, then those who really did believe in him without proof are robbed of that security. They can no longer gain confidence out of their own will and believe, but end up seeing god's help as nothing more than a service, like that of a repairman.

2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?

The church is a human organisation, which was errected to control christians and christianity. During the period of time in which christians and non-christian romans came into conflict threatened to turn into a civil war, with ugly outcomes for rome. So what did the emperors do? They converted all of rome to christianity (but allegedly manipulated it a bit to turn it into a mix of early religions and christianity) but erected the roman catholic church to keep christians under control and to assure that the power over them remained in roman hands, hence the Pope as god's hand on earth.

To answer the question: Jesus gave no church the power to forgive sins, but allowed each person to repent their own sins and gain entry to heaven. The church simply took that ability and convinced people that only a priest could relieve them of their sins, hence working directly against Jesus' will.

3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. They used God[s] to explain fire, rain, love, human existance, etc. We have for some time been able to explain fire, rain and love(to an extent). Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?

As I explained to question 1, it's not about the "right" religion or the "right" god, but just the principle of having a god at all and having something to believe in, if you want or need to. None of the religions as we know them today are correct at all. A religion is never "correct", as it would imply the ability to explain a god in a human codex. A religion was only meant to be a guide, which can never be completely correct or complete. Buddhism is an excellent example of this. Although various regional forms of it have very clear rules, Buddhism in it's "pure" form has very few rules and simply explains the concept of being reborn and reaching enlightenment. It's a guide in each and every person's life to find enlightenment, which in itself is also different for each person.

As a note: I'm an atheist and very against any church claiming to know the will of god or representing him. Just for the sake of clarification.

My two cents

I know something of abuse also, but for some reason, it never turned me away from God. The same can be said of several other people that I personally know. Do you think that it is logical to turn away from God because you have suffered? Perhaps you have other reasons for this, but childhood abuse, at the hands of a member of organised religion is not a good reason for trashing God, in my opinion. I would even go as far as saying that it's not a good enough reason for trashing that particular brand of organised religion. (I am not a member of any organised religion, though I prefer going to a church that obviously loves Jesus.)
I suspect that there is more than your childnood suffering that caused you to turn away from what you were once taught. No doubt, your suffering is/was great, and God understands that. He is a very kind and loving God, after all. But I wonder, what have you gained by turning away from Him?

Yeah three years of my life being abused by what to me was pushed as gods messenger then having my families future (both on this planet and beyond) threatened by the then bishop and a whole host of the “councilors” they tried to get me to see (none of them an actual licensed psychiatrist nor therapist all of them were just “brothers”) if I ever said a word was not enough to turn me away :rolleyes:

Maybe it was the 15 year battle with the organization to get my parents retirement funds back that they had to spend on a therapist just so that I would not cry myself to sleep anymore
Somewhere I became disillusioned as to the ability of the church to teach the word of god (if there really is one)

The organization as is has the potential and has been used for great harm Im sorry that my reality may be a bit twisted but that much abuse at that young and I have a bit of trust issues

I am not bashing your god I am questioning the organization and the text’s reliability though

This would seem to support the notion that God has mad the differentiation...i.e. the choice. He's designed the plan and put it forth. I'm just part of it. Within it. Unable to fully cognate on the whole thing or even fully comprehend my own place within it. I'm just here...part of God's plan. Doing....exactly what God planned. Believing...exactly as God planned.

Ultimately you are. God planned for you to be hearing this right now. He is giving you multiple opportunities to choose him, or at least to really be seeking him. You are fully able to cognate though. He made sure of that. You have everything you need to be able to choose him at some point. If you seek the truth, Him, He will be found. He's not playing hide and seek with you. You don't need to fully understand everything that he understands to be able to understand the things he has told you.

I didn't realize this was a comedy gig! I chortle at your simple-mindedness!
Because you of course are yourself not narrow minded :rolleyes:

Oh, well I don't disagree with you that belief is possible. It most certainly is...and I used to believe. However, God made me in such a way that I would eventually not believe and he knew that I would not. For some reason or another, he wanted me to not believe and therefore made me this way. I'm okay with that. Really, I am. I just don't think he'll judge me for it.

And I realize the terseness of my statements comes off as my blaming God for things. The reality is, I don't. I don't believe he exists. Can't prove it, but I don't think he does.

And, even if he does, I don't think he'd judge me negatively for being what he created me to be. I'm fulfilling some role that he designed. And I don't think that a benevolent God, if he does exist, would punish me for fulfilling the role he designed. I don't blame him nor do I bear ill will toward him. I just don't fear judgement as cited by so many Christians.

Sounds like you are betting that your way of interpreting the world that you find yourself in against that which is clearly written in the Bible. If we accept that the Bible is true (ok, that's a really big deal, but for the sake of the argument), in the Bible, we find that God gets happy, upset, angry, sad, delighted, even amazed over the choices that humans make. He is a person, according to the Scriptures. Now, if we were just computer programs in God's world, firstly, He would have to take the blame for all the wrong, and secondly, it would not be terribly logical for Him to get emotional, i.e., happy, upset, sad, etc with us, His little computer programs.
A world where God made us without an ability to chose whatever we believe is not really consistent with logic. The fact that there is death, destruction, and decay is clearly an indication that this place isn't perfect, whether you believe in God or not. The fact that we can know love and truth, as distict from decay and corruption, suggests that there is a clash....the results of choice. A loving God who has made us as computer programs is not consisted with this, for He would be a devious God indeed.

Because you of course are yourself not narrow minded :rolleyes:

Who are you and how should I know you?

Rejection of God in that circumstance is rationally explainable, anyway. One rejects God because one doesn't want to associate one's self with the act of abuse. When priests, those claiming to represent the object of your faith, act in a way that seems immoral, you naturally link the action to the faith and, as a result, you reject the faith firstly out of spite for those who performed the original injustice, secondly to prevent the memory of the event from haunting you in the future, and thirdly as a statement to say "This is Not how I want to live my life".

Seems reasonable to me, anyway.

It's a reasonable argument for a child to make. The negative feelings and associations would be rather strong But I reckon a more developed person (than a 10 year old child) is capable of looking at the big picture, and perhaps taking more things into consideration.

Many other people have believed in many other religions and many other Gods. They fully believed, as you do, that their religion was the correct one.

Later, some of those religions were dispelled by an increasing understanding of the universe around us. A prime example is Apollo. It was thought that Apollo was responsible for dragging the sun across the sky. Why? Because they had no other plausible explanation. Eventually, we figured out that we see the sun cross the sky because the Earth rotates about its axis, so now the notion of the god Apollo is completely dispelled.

When people use the origin of the universe as part of the argument in favor of God's existence, I view it the same way. Perhaps we don't know the answer right now, but that doesn't mean I'll attribute it to a God.

I know there have been many other sincere believers in things that are not true. As facts were discovered later, these ideas were considered outdated and people moved on.

But Christianity (and originally Judaism) was not created in an attempt to explain natural phenomenon. About the only times I can think of this actually happening in the Bible is the rainbow after Noah's flood.

Origins is a bit different because to answer what most religions try to answer "why we are here" we need to know how we got here. So that is an integral part of Christianity.

We may grow to understand the way in which God created the universe, but that does not obsolete God. He still did it. We can't do it.

The reason so many religions included explanations for things like the sun moving is because they understood that a power outside of themselves was doing it. Once we came to understand the forces that made the sun appear to be moving, we replaced the old theory. That does not mean that there is no power outside of ourselves in the universe; it just means it isn't directly doing all the things we used to think it did.

Well, I'm off to lunch, and I probably won't be back on today.

Thank you all for your sincere and well thought discussions. I don't get to debate like this often. I work on a Christian campus, and I don't get in contact with unbelievers (and since I'm in the south, athiests) much at all.

I pray that you will seek the truth, and that the Lord will reveal Himself to you. I hope that my few, stumbling words are used by Him, and that I didn't get in His way too much.

God bless!

There is more to it than that. This isn't just "well he knew I wouldn't believe he existed so he can't punish me for being how he made me." He did not make you to be a sinner.

We have been talking about this as though it were a polite choice and we can live our lives fine either way.

But all of us, *all* of us, regardless of what we believe or why, are sinners. That means rebels, people who have willingly spit in God's face, called him a liar, and said, no thanks I'll run my own life. That is what he condemns us for, not our lack of faith or ability to believe.
Actually, he did make me to be a sinner and that is the point. Me made the universe what it is. He chose to make the universe knowing exactly how it would be. For some reason, he still chose to make it this way...sinners and all. And that's fine with me.

I just don't think that a truly benevolent God would judge me for not having faith.

Honestly, if I must define what I think Judgement would be, assuming it will occur...I think that we'd each be judged based on our own moral code. If we were truly good people based on our own moral beliefs, as we are capable of understanding morality, then I think we will be viewed positively and will not be punished or turned away from paradise or whatever may exist beyond this world.

Remember, not everyone gets exposed to Christiantiy. Can God fairly judge someone who's born and raised in a society that doesn't have Christianity? How about if an infant dies before ever understanding language? What about someone born with profound mental retardation? God cannot judge these people based on the Bible. God cannot judge them based on any major religion's ethics or morals because these people were never given the chance to believe "correctly". The were not given the opportunity to have "faith".

These people would have to be judged based on what they are capable of understanding....i.e. their own morality.

Who are you and how should I know you?
I am :p

It's a reasonable argument for a child to make. The negative feelings and associations would be rather strong But I reckon a more developed person (than a 10 year old child) is capable of looking at the big picture, and perhaps taking more things into consideration.

Given that the most documented victims of abuse from parishioners are children, I think your argument perhaps misses the point. Anyway, kids who experience something like that are severely stunted in their emotional growth during adolescence, and I doubt that having been through it, many people would rush back to claim that they were in the wrong about their decision to leave the faith.

Ultimately you are. God planned for you to be hearing this right now. He is giving you multiple opportunities to choose him, or at least to really be seeking him. You are fully able to cognate though. He made sure of that. You have everything you need to be able to choose him at some point. If you seek the truth, Him, He will be found. He's not playing hide and seek with you. You don't need to fully understand everything that he understands to be able to understand the things he has told you.
Then you agree that my non-belief in God is what God chose for me, should God exist. That would also imply that God would not look upon me negatively for his own decisions, should I meet Judgement.

Now, on to Ralph...it's lunch time!

Yeah three years of my life being abused by what to me was pushed as gods messenger then having my families future (both on this planet and beyond) threatened by the then bishop and a whole host of the “councilors” they tried to get me to see (none of them an actual licensed psychiatrist nor therapist all of them were just “brothers”) if I ever said a word was not enough to turn me away :rolleyes:

Maybe it was the 15 year battle with the organization to get my parents retirement funds back that they had to spend on a therapist just so that I would not cry myself to sleep anymore
Somewhere I became disillusioned as to the ability of the church to teach the word of god (if there really is one)

The organization as is has the potential and has been used for great harm Im sorry that my reality may be a bit twisted but that much abuse at that young and I have a bit of trust issues

I am not bashing your god I am questioning the organization and the text’s reliability though


How could any organisation, based on something as good as the Good News of Jesus (I.e., the Bible) ever get to such a state? That's something that really should horrify any believer. And yet such stories no longer surprise me. They horrify, or course, but my point is that they are now so frequent that almost no one is surprised that such an organisation that claims to be God's hands and feet have become a house that distributes such evil.
Well, when I think about the crusades, and I wonder how hundreds of thousands of 'Christians' somehow misread the part where Jesus says to love your enemies, I have to come to the conclusion that humans really are incredible creatures. The crusaders had to deliberately neglect Christ's commands in order to bring about such destruction.
I suppose, in the same way, any one of us who call ourselves Christians are capable of disobedience, to the point of harming others. That is human nature, not God. Not the Bible, for it clearly states that sex should be restricted to a loving lifetime commitment between two individuals. When any member of an organised religion crosses that line, it's no longer the fault of the line that is crossed. However, when the organised religion refused to remove the offender, it becomes part of the offense. So, perhaps you are right to criticise that organisation. But not the Bible. For it was wronged also. The member of the organised religion that abused you, and the other leading members who defended the wrong are certainly the ones to blame. But not the Bible.

religious studies is exactly that, the study of religion. mythology included no?
I don't know about religious studies, but mythology studies provides an objective view of all religions by looking at the "how and why" of myth, not just as story elements but as a reflection of mankind's evolving consciousness. It explores things like cross-cultural motifs, mythic images, and transmission of myths. This site (http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/foamycustard/fc047.htm) provides an example of what I'm referring to, and the kind of mythology studies you should look for if seriously interested in the topic. I like the quote, "Lance Bennett has referred to myths as being like the lenses of spectacles – they determine how we see the world, but we almost always look through them rather than look at them."

How could any organisation, based on something as good as the Good News of Jesus (I.e., the Bible) ever get to such a state? That's something that really should horrify any believer. And yet such stories no longer surprise me. They horrify, or course, but my point is that they are now so frequent that almost no one is surprised that such an organisation that claims to be God's hands and feet have become a house that distributes such evil.
Well, when I think about the crusades, and I wonder how hundreds of thousands of 'Christians' somehow misread the part where Jesus says to love your enemies, I have to come to the conclusion that humans really are incredible creatures. The crusaders had to deliberately neglect Christ's commands in order to bring about such destruction.
I suppose, in the same way, any one of us who call ourselves Christians are capable of disobedience, to the point of harming others. That is human nature, not God. Not the Bible, for it clearly states that sex should be restricted to a loving lifetime commitment between two individuals. When any member of an organised religion crosses that line, it's no longer the fault of the line that is crossed. However, when the organised religion refused to remove the offender, it becomes part of the offense. So, perhaps you are right to criticise that organisation. But not the Bible. For it was wronged also. The member of the organised religion that abused you, and the other leading members who defended the wrong are certainly the ones to blame. But not the Bible.

I am not blaming the bible for that … my contention with the bible steams from something else

Organizations can be used and abused hence why I could not just trust that they were telling me the truth about my god Blind faith in an organization of humans is just stupidity

The question why someone believes in the Christian God in pointless. It's all a matter of belief, and posting, arguing or fighting over belief on an internetforum isn't going tot convert anyone to atheïst or Christian or whatever. If people choose to be Christian, let them be. but similar: if others choose to be atheïst, that choice is theirs and let them be with that.

I for one am not only scientist (taking the definition of scientist of this forum :) ), but also deïst. I believe there is something greater than us, some universal force of perhaps even a god that set all things in motion.
But I do not believe that the God revered by Christians is 'responsible' for that. It's quite a long story why, and if you really want to know you can always ask.
Point is, let everyone have their choice and respect it. the concept of this thread is a nice one, but again everyone is discussing and trying to prove the other wrong. That's quite pointless. You can't change what other want to believe. Really. (And this goes for both christians and atheists ;))


Live and let live

Sounds like you are betting that your way of interpreting the world that you find yourself in against that which is clearly written in the Bible. If we accept that the Bible is true (ok, that's a really big deal, but for the sake of the argument), in the Bible, we find that God gets happy, upset, angry, sad, delighted, even amazed over the choices that humans make. He is a person, according to the Scriptures. Now, if we were just computer programs in God's world, firstly, He would have to take the blame for all the wrong, and secondly, it would not be terribly logical for Him to get emotional, i.e., happy, upset, sad, etc with us, His little computer programs.
A world where God made us without an ability to chose whatever we believe is not really consistent with logic. The fact that there is death, destruction, and decay is clearly an indication that this place isn't perfect, whether you believe in God or not. The fact that we can know love and truth, as distict from decay and corruption, suggests that there is a clash....the results of choice. A loving God who has made us as computer programs is not consisted with this, for He would be a devious God indeed.
Then you're saying God is not omnipotent, omniscient and/or benevolent. Interesting. Let's explore this one...

If he's not omnipotent, then how can he create a universe? How can I be sure that he really has the power to judge me and condemn me?

If he's not omniscient, then is he truly knowledgable enough to be passing judgement on me? What if he's missing some info and he makes a mistake?

If he's not benevolent, then does he really have the moral grounds by which he should be judging me? If he's having a bad day, am I to suffer eternal damnation for it?

We may grow to understand the way in which God created the universe, but that does not obsolete God. He still did it. We can't do it.

The reason so many religions included explanations for things like the sun moving is because they understood that a power outside of themselves was doing it. Once we came to understand the forces that made the sun appear to be moving, we replaced the old theory. That does not mean that there is no power outside of ourselves in the universe; it just means it isn't directly doing all the things we used to think it did.

Those two paragraphs would seem to present opposing philosophies. In the first, you say that coming to understand how the universe was created doesn't mean that God didn't do it. In the second, you agree that old notions can be replaced as our understanding of the universe increases.

I agree with the latter and I don't begin with the base notion that because I don't have an perfect answer currently that I must attribute it to some kind of diety.

(And this goes for both christians and atheists ;))

Hooray! We agnostics can be as bigoted and aggressive as we want! ^__^

Given that the most documented victims of abuse from parishioners are children, I think your argument perhaps misses the point. Anyway, kids who experience something like that are severely stunted in their emotional growth during adolescence, and I doubt that having been through it, many people would rush back to claim that they were in the wrong about their decision to leave the faith.

I agree that many people who have once left the faith are hardly likely to rush back to it. But perhaps there are many reasons for this, certainly a lot more than I can think of right now.
I don't say that a child undergoing the abuse should be able to reason the way you and I are right now. Firstly, their capacity for reason is (theoretically, anyway) less developed, and the emotions they would be experiencing would be far too strong for them to overcome. Yet there remains the fact that there are some who have been through abuse, but have not turned away from belief in God, but rather have searched for Him all the more because of it.

Thus, abuse at the hands of organised religion need not equal a rejection of the belief that that religion holds, either at the time, or later when that person has reached adulthood. (The lives of people I know personally are proof of this.) Thus, there must be other factors involved, perhaps similar to the ones that affect those people who haven't been abused. That is my point. Do you agree?

Hooray! We agnostics can be as bigoted and aggressive as we want! ^__^

Agnostic! That was the word I was looking for, 'stead of deïst.
Here, have a cookie and go agressively play around some. But no insulting other on their beliefs, okay? ;)

I agree that many people who have once left the faith are hardly likely to rush back to it. But perhaps there are many reasons for this, certainly a lot more than I can think of right now.
I don't say that a child undergoing the abuse should be able to reason the way you and I are right now. Firstly, their capacity for reason is (theoretically, anyway) less developed, and the emotions they would be experiencing would be far too strong for them to overcome. Yet there remains the fact that there are some who have been through abuse, but have not turned away from belief in God, but rather have searched for Him all the more because of it.

Thus, abuse at the hands of organised religion need not equal a rejection of the belief that that religion holds, either at the time, or later when that person has reached adulthood. (The lives of people I know personally are proof of this.) Thus, there must be other factors involved, perhaps similar to the ones that affect those people who haven't been abused. That is my point. Do you agree?
Abuse affects people differently just because one person was able to or had the wish to rejoin does not mean that the abuse does the same to me.
Our experiences were not equal … or thoughts or history our feelings were not equal there is no way to say “this person was able to so all can if they truly want it” because for each of us the experience was different and affected us in a different way

The question why someone believes in the Christian God in pointless. It's all a matter of belief, and posting, arguing or fighting over belief on an internetforum isn't going tot convert anyone to atheïst or Christian or whatever. If people choose to be Christian, let them be. but similar: if others choose to be atheïst, that choice is theirs and let them be with that.

I for one am not only scientist (taking the definition of scientist of this forum :) ), but also deïst. I believe there is something greater than us, some universal force of perhaps even a god that set all things in motion.
But I do not believe that the God revered by Christians is 'responsible' for that. It's quite a long story why, and if you really want to know you can always ask.
Point is, let everyone have their choice and respect it. the concept of this thread is a nice one, but again everyone is discussing and trying to prove the other wrong. That's quite pointless. You can't change what other want to believe. Really. (And this goes for both christians and atheists ;))


Live and let live

Actually, I disagree with you. People's beliefs do change. I know Christians who have wavered and I know athiests who've been born again. I believe that everyone is entitled to whatever religion they wish. This does not, however, mean that meaningful debate cannot be had on the issue.

Religion is a system of beliefs and it is open for discussion. Just like politics or anything else. Personally, I feel more fulfilled by such discussions. It confirms to me, on a regular basis, that my agnosticism is well founded.

And, honestly, I like to debate such things. It's a wonderful mental exercise. The brain, like anything else in the body, withers away when not used to its fullest.

I agree that many people who have once left the faith are hardly likely to rush back to it. But perhaps there are many reasons for this, certainly a lot more than I can think of right now.
I don't say that a child undergoing the abuse should be able to reason the way you and I are right now. Firstly, their capacity for reason is (theoretically, anyway) less developed, and the emotions they would be experiencing would be far too strong for them to overcome. Yet there remains the fact that there are some who have been through abuse, but have not turned away from belief in God, but rather have searched for Him all the more because of it.

Thus, abuse at the hands of organised religion need not equal a rejection of the belief that that religion holds, either at the time, or later when that person has reached adulthood. (The lives of people I know personally are proof of this.) Thus, there must be other factors involved, perhaps similar to the ones that affect those people who haven't been abused. That is my point. Do you agree?

Fair enough; abuse on that level can lead some to delve deeper into understanding. But I stand by my point that those who suffer persecution from the church are justified in removing themselves from it and also maintain that doing so does in some ways reflects a healthy empathetic attitude. The child, perhaps mistakenly though justifiably given his or her circumstances, may link the organisation with the crime, and if they do so, are entirely encouraged to leave rather than accept the label and potentially go on to perpetrate the very act committed against them.

Or is there something wrong with my own reasoning? >_>;

Then you're saying God is not omnipotent, omniscient and/or benevolent. Interesting. Let's explore this one...

If he's not omnipotent, then how can he create a universe? How can I be sure that he really has the power to judge me and condemn me?

If he's not omniscient, then is he truly knowledgable enough to be passing judgement on me? What if he's missing some info and he makes a mistake?

If he's not benevolent, then does he really have the moral grounds by which he should be judging me? If he's having a bad day, am I to suffer eternal damnation for it?

By what do you understand omnipotentm or omniscient or benevolent? I suppose these words should be defined, but who could possibly do that? What is all-powerful to you? Is it not possible for the all-mighty to draw a limit to His own power? Let's say, He has the power to control your choices, but also the power to let you make your choices and reap the benefits of those choices. That would be He could be delighted or disappointed with your choices. Since He loves you so very much, He will never override your choices. He chose your gender, your nationality, your parents, etc. But there are clearly many choices He gave to you? Does that make Him any less the all-powerful.

That He is omniscient is really a mystery, since knowledge is a rather limited thing for us.....in the sense that we have so little of it. In the scriptures, jesus is describes as being delighted and surprised at the faith of a certain woman, while disappointed with the weakness of faith by a certain group of men. Jesus, at least, did not know everything, while a man on earth. God the Father, however, apparently knows all things, and yet the interaction between His will and our will is truly a complicated thing. I cannot really shed more light on this, perhaps because I am rather limited when it comes to knowledge. I can even imagine what it would be like to be all knowing, even with the right definition of the word.

He doesn't have bad days in the sense that He doesn't have inperfections, but is perfectly consistent in character. Thus His judgements will always be the same, regardless of the day. He is, after all, both inside and outside of time, a thing of His design. Thus, he will judge you, according to the 'light' that you have recieved. Those who have been given a little light will be judged easier than those to whom much has been given. This is what Jesus said.

Abuse affects people differently just because one person was able to or had the wish to rejoin does not mean that the abuse does the same to me.
Our experiences were not equal … or thoughts or history our feelings were not equal there is no way to say “this person was able to so all can if they truly want it” because for each of us the experience was different and affected us in a different way

I totally agree.

Fair enough; abuse on that level can lead some to delve deeper into understanding. But I stand by my point that those who suffer persecution from the church are justified in removing themselves from it and also maintain that doing so does in some ways reflects a healthy empathetic attitude. The child, perhaps mistakenly though justifiably given his or her circumstances, may link the organisation with the crime, and if they do so, are entirely encouraged to leave rather than accept the label and potentially go on to perpetrate the very act committed against them.

Or is there something wrong with my own reasoning? >_>;
Even with leaving the church there is still a massive chance that those abused WILL go on perpetrating it (which has lead to my decision never to have kids)

No amount of conscious reasoning can overcome some of the things that abuse on that level does to you … I am still finding new ways today that it is trying to effect my life

Fair enough; abuse on that level can lead some to delve deeper into understanding. But I stand by my point that those who suffer persecution from the church are justified in removing themselves from it and also maintain that doing so does in some ways reflects a healthy empathetic attitude. The child, perhaps mistakenly though justifiably given his or her circumstances, may link the organisation with the crime, and if they do so, are entirely encouraged to leave rather than accept the label and potentially go on to perpetrate the very act committed against them.

Or is there something wrong with my own reasoning? >_>;

No, you are right. I agree with your point. I would leave that organisation too. Perhaps partly in recognition of my own human limitations. Any organisation that would defend, or even try to cover over such a fault (as child abuse) is seriously in danger of a literal death, and should be rejected by all who love truth and transparency.

however, an organisation that admitted it's faults, and tried to 'come clean' would have something in it that is perhaps worth holding on to. Do you agree with that?

By what do you understand omnipotentm or omniscient or benevolent? I suppose these words should be defined, but who could possibly do that? What is all-powerful to you? Is it not possible for the all-mighty to draw a limit to His own power? Let's say, He has the power to control your choices, but also the power to let you make your choices and reap the benefits of those choices. That would be He could be delighted or disappointed with your choices. Since He loves you so very much, He will never override your choices. He chose your gender, your nationality, your parents, etc. But there are clearly many choices He gave to you? Does that make Him any less the all-powerful.

That He is omniscient is really a mystery, since knowledge is a rather limited thing for us.....in the sense that we have so little of it. In the scriptures, jesus is describes as being delighted and surprised at the faith of a certain woman, while disappointed with the weakness of faith by a certain group of men. Jesus, at least, did not know everything, while a man on earth. God the Father, however, apparently knows all things, and yet the interaction between His will and our will is truly a complicated thing. I cannot really shed more light on this, perhaps because I am rather limited when it comes to knowledge. I can even imagine what it would be like to be all knowing, even with the right definition of the word.

He doesn't have bad days in the sense that He doesn't have inperfections, but is perfectly consistent in character. Thus His judgements will always be the same, regardless of the day. He is, after all, both inside and outside of time, a thing of His design. Thus, he will judge you, according to the 'light' that you have recieved. Those who have been given a little light will be judged easier than those to whom much has been given. This is what Jesus said.
Omnipotence is being all-powerful, capable of all things. I.e. God could have made the universe a different way....like making a universe in which I have faith. Either he chose not to or he can't do it. If he chose not to, then I'm fulfilling his choice. If I'm doing that, I don't think he'd judge me harshly for doing so.

Omniscience is knowing all things. Either he does or he doesn't. If he knew I wouldn't believe when he made me and chose to make me anyway, the it was his choice that I would not believe. Again, I'm doing what he wants me to do and I don't think he'd judge me harshly for that.

Benevolence is the disposition to do good. If he does only good, then I can't imagine he'd be judging me harshly for doing exactly what he knew I would do when creating me the way he did.


I just think that if there's a God and he's going to judge me, he's going to be cool enough to realize that he had a hand in the whole thing and that he's not going to condemn me for his decisions.

How could any organisation, based on something as good as the Good News of Jesus (I.e., the Bible) ever get to such a state? That's something that really should horrify any believer. And yet such stories no longer surprise me. They horrify, or course, but my point is that they are now so frequent that almost no one is surprised that such an organisation that claims to be God's hands and feet have become a house that distributes such evil.
Well, when I think about the crusades, and I wonder how hundreds of thousands of 'Christians' somehow misread the part where Jesus says to love your enemies, I have to come to the conclusion that humans really are incredible creatures. The crusaders had to deliberately neglect Christ's commands in order to bring about such destruction.
I suppose, in the same way, any one of us who call ourselves Christians are capable of disobedience, to the point of harming others. That is human nature, not God. Not the Bible, for it clearly states that sex should be restricted to a loving lifetime commitment between two individuals. When any member of an organised religion crosses that line, it's no longer the fault of the line that is crossed. However, when the organised religion refused to remove the offender, it becomes part of the offense. So, perhaps you are right to criticise that organisation. But not the Bible. For it was wronged also. The member of the organised religion that abused you, and the other leading members who defended the wrong are certainly the ones to blame. But not the Bible.


About crusaders, conquistadors and others who conquered, enslaved and slaughtered in the name of God i have to say this: religion was only an excuse. In 13th century there was thousands of "unemployed" knights and nobles searching for new land, money and prestige. Hey, muslims took over Holy City! What a perfect situation to get rid of these violent morons, thought kings and the Pope. And there we go, burning and killing. NP, they are pagans, let them die, take what ya want my brave men, you are
doing it in the name of the God!
Same with South America. Oh, there is a culture? It is civilized, it has science, it has kings and governments, it has even literature?
Are they pagans? They are? Ok, good, no problem then, God is on our side, lets burn this place says Pizarro, and there we go again.

Those in charge have always used the religion, it has been used by selfish and greedy murderers under those rulers and it has been used by the organization itself, the Pope and his staff. That has nothing to do with Bible, neither the word of the God, but that's the way we humans are. Which leads me to my point:

Didn't God create us to be his own "picture" (in lack of a decent English word, I just translated a Finnish way of saying it) and aren't we fully builded up by him? If so, how can this shit happen?

3 Options: 1.There is no God, but people want to believe in something and they need a simple explanation about the world.
2.God is cruel and he wants to see his creatures to suffer.
3.He has miserably failed in attempt to build humans as good and peaceful race. As all of these options make him to look not someone i want to pray for, I don't. So I am an atheist, no matter how much I'd like to believe in him.

Even with leaving the church there is still a massive chance that those abused WILL go on perpetrating it (which has lead to my decision never to have kids)

No amount of conscious reasoning can overcome some of the things that abuse on that level does to you … I am still finding new ways today that it is trying to effect my life
You're right; there's no way I can understand what you're going through, and I guess I can't do anything but apologise for that. Perhaps the only thing I might suggest is that at the head of it all, someone committed a great evil for the sheer purpose of self gratification, and there's probably nothing he'd like more than to see you submit. So Vive le Resistance! If you can break the cycle, it'd be a metaphorical spit in the face of whoever it was got the whole thing started.

No, you are right. I agree with your point. I would leave that organisation too. Perhaps partly in recognition of my own human limitations. Any organisation that would defend, or even try to cover over such a fault (as child abuse) is seriously in danger of a literal death, and should be rejected by all who love truth and transparency.

however, an organisation that admitted it's faults, and tried to 'come clean' would have something in it that is perhaps worth holding on to. Do you agree with that?

Hmm... Well, it's always difficult to tell the degree to which anyone is sincere about rebirth. Anything that can genuinely admit it's in the wrong and make an effort to change deserves recognition for that fact. However, in many cases, the change is a long, difficult and often seemingly fruitless experience, and I think the answer is different for each organisation depending on firstly the severity of their past faults, secondly the effect of their continued operation, thirdly their willingness to change and finally the degree to which what underlies the organisation was responsible for the faults.

Note that I'm using fault to mean against the law of human empathy. Given that both Humanity and Christianity are to an extent organisations, I'm using the fundamental logic of that which we have no choice in (our status as humans) as the base value: Treat Others as you would have yourself Treated (even though it's a Christian message, which certainly improves its status when it comes to considering its retention, it's still at its basis a human relation issue).

Actually, I disagree with you. People's beliefs do change.

Ofcourse they do. But they don't change because of feeble messages on an internet board. I was once Christian myself, until I started questioning some statements. I believe that everyone is entitled to whatever religion they wish. This does not, however, mean that meaningful debate cannot be had on the issue.

My point exactly. But the internet doesn't lend itself very well to meaningful debates.

It confirms to me, on a regular basis, that my agnosticism is well founded.

It confirms it to you. It strengthens your believes. To you agnosticism is well founded (as it is to me, I just forgot the right word so I used deïst).
But to christians, their believes are well founded as well. For them, believe is a foundation. So, even IF you would be able to undermine every single statement they make, there will still be a whole lot of believers. And who are we to say they are wrong? :)

And, honestly, I like to debate such things. It's a wonderful mental exercise. The brain, like anything else in the body, withers away when not used to its fullest.

Agreed. I frequently have lengthy debates about things as politics, science, philosophy and religion. Mostly about politics and science, because I don't like to discuss about religious questions. But there are several diffrences.
First of all, it's in 'real life'. Internet is not the best way to make debates.
Second, we debate with mutual respect, and that's something frequently seems to be a problem. Some people just seem to be here just to break other peoples beliefs.

I'm not saying we can't discuss about this. I'm saying that most of the time, perhaps it's just happening in the wrong way :)


Live and let live

Why beat our heads senseless against another persons wall of hatred and ignorance again?
Personally Ive been through this about five times, its pointless, you either believe or you dont, its that simple.
Just couldnt be bothered anymore, atheists are beyond human help.
Completely agreed!
How many times would we have to say the same things over and over to get anyone of the non-believers to believe. All we can do is pray and ask God to open your eyes and hearts. :)

I don't feel that I have to prove anything. :)
Agreed!
Not only that, but God doesn't need defenders or champions.
In the end, those who have believed the truth will be rewarded accordingly.

But there is no proof of the bible (no real proof of most of the things claimed) so using the bible as proof really does not prove anything

Yes it can help explain why some of the beliefs are they way they are but they dont verify anything

You've got to be joking!
There are "countless" unbelievers who use these forums and ask Christians to defend / explain themselves and their God... and yet, we cannot use the one source of reference that we use and refer to?? That is just foolish and utter nonsense! If you can all dispute The Bible, we can all use The Bible.

For us, it verifies everything! For those of us who believe it IS proof!

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

You see, this is what I mean. Obviously Sableonia is convinced his (or her?) religion is the only right one. More even, that non-believers are lost sheep (and we all now what happens to lost sheep according to the bible :) ) and only believers will be rewarded in afterlife.
You cannot debate with people who refuse to believe or even listen to anything else. At least, not on the internet. That is why I think these discussions are pointless.



(Note: there is, ofcourse, nothing wrong with Sableonia's strong belief. It's a choice that he (or she, dunno) has made. It was merely taken as an example, and is not meant as a personal attack of any kind, just so you'd all know ;))

For all of you who believe we don't have evidence of God's existence because God doesn't want people to have it, I ask this question. If God never showed anybody evidence of his existence, how did people ever came to the realization that there is a god? There's also plenty of passages in the bible that tells how God showed himself in some way to a few people he had chosen, such as the burning bush to Moses. So if it is true, then it is clear that God did show himself when he needs to convince someone.

That begs the question, why didn't God just show himself to every nonbeliever? An easy answer would be that those people that claim to have seen God were just been delusional, and there isn't a god.

"If God is perfect in goodness and wisdom, then ignorance and evil cannot come from Him. If they could come from Him, He would not be perfect; and if He were not perfect, He should not be praised as God and perfectly good..."

Sorry, but I can't remember who said that. But could someone prove it wrong and save my soul?

For all of you who believe we don't have evidence of God's existence because God doesn't want people to have it, I ask this question. If God never showed anybody evidence of his existence, how did people ever came to the realization that there is a god? There's also plenty of passages in the bible that tells how God showed himself in some way to a few people he had chosen, such as the burning bush to Moses. So if it is true, then it is clear that God did show himself when he needs to convince someone.

That begs the question, why didn't God just show himself to every nonbeliever? An easy answer would be that those people that claim to have seen God were just been delusional, and there isn't a god.

I doubt people ever came to a realization that there was a god. If there is something people can't understand, the obvious answer is to just blame it on some higher power. In this case, it turned out to be god.

I am an athiest myself, but I don't think there's any use in endlessly debating over whether or not a god exists. There would be no way to prove that he doesn't exist anyways. I believe that the morals most religions stand for are good, and if they want to believe in a god, then that's up to them. I won't try and force my beliefs on anyone, and no one should try to force theirs on me or anyone else.

"If God is perfect in goodness and wisdom, then ignorance and evil cannot come from Him. If they could come from Him, He would not be perfect; and if He were not perfect, He should not be praised as God and perfectly good..."

Sorry, but I can't remember who said that. But could someone prove it wrong and save my soul?

It's from Mardanfarrokh, a Zoroastrian theologian from the 9th century BCE. I personally can't dispute it, and wouldn't want to as it's one of the many arguments I have with Christianity. One quote I always choose from the Bible is Isaiah 45:7, which reads "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." That may be a bit off as my memory isn't perfect, but you should get the gist really :)

You dont need to ask the church for forgiveness.........you can ask God personally through prayer. You dont need to go through a man to be forgiven by God. You can ask God Himself to forgive you...from you car, your bedroom, in public, at the mall, at work, in class.....ANYWHERE! God is everywhere, and hears your prayers.

It's from Mardanfarrokh, a Zoroastrian theologian from the 9th century BCE. I personally can't dispute it, and wouldn't want to as it's one of the many arguments I have with Christianity. One quote I always choose from the Bible is Isaiah 45:7, which reads "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." That may be a bit off as my memory isn't perfect, but you should get the gist really :)
My Bible says "discord" and it is obviously in reference to wars.

My Bible says "discord" and it is obviously in reference to wars.

One of my Bibles says it the way I quoted, and the other says "I make weal and create woe." Either way, that makes a difference how? Whatever translation you have, I want nothing to do with a God who claims to be perfect yet admits to creating war. I'm not saying I don't believe in some kind of God, just not the Christian image of it - my personal philosophies, which i'm constantly exploring, questioning and developing, tend towards a more eastern outlook. Just so you know :rolleyes:

One of my Bibles says it the way I quoted, and the other says "I make weal and create woe." Either way, that makes a difference how? Whatever translation you have, I want nothing to do with a God who claims to be perfect yet admits to creating war. I'm not saying I don't believe in some kind of God, just not the Christian image of it - my personal philosophies, which i'm constantly exploring, questioning and developing, tend towards a more eastern outlook. Just so you know :rolleyes:
Just a difference of context. Wars were not considered a "bad thing" in earlier times, and are not inherently evil.

I really don't see the purpose of this thread.

Athiesm is nothing to flaunt or talk about really.

As an athiest, your belief system should be unimportant to you because YOU DON'T HAVE ONE.

There's no great mandate that we, as athiests, must convert people and certainly no real reason to because what effect will it have? None.

Also, as an athiest you should know by now that people have religion because they don't want or need an explaination. They "know" that God is there and he will make it all better and that's that. Nothing will make them stop believing that, *gasp* not even reason, unless something traumatic or greatly revealing happens to them.

So basically I'm saying give up. The entire idea behind athiesm is that your belief structure is nothing. Zip. Zero. Null. So why the fuck do we, as athiests, find it so important to tell EVERYONE WE MEET and with no reason.

All athiesm is is a title for having no religious belief. It doesn't make it something. Zero isn't something; but there's a word for it and it as a concept exists, but it's still nothing. By definition it is nothing. Athiesm is by definition nothing. So keep it that way.

Also, as an athiest you should know by now that people have religion because they don't want or need an explaination. They "know" that God is there and he will make it all better and that's that. Nothing will make them stop believing that, *gasp* not even reason, unless something traumatic or greatly revealing happens to them.


Like what, what could possibly be so revealing that God doesnt exist, it would be more probable, that an event would occur where something proves that God exists, than doesnt.
As it says in the Bible, every person shall one day kneel, and acknowlege Jesus as Lord.
And Id say there will be quite a few who will do so unhappily.

There are three main questions stopping me from converting to Chritsianity. If you do answer them, don't do it with 'God works in mysterious ways'.

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?
What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?

2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?

3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. They used God[s] to explain fire, rain, love, human existance, etc. We have for some time been able to explain fire, rain and love(to an extent). Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?

Ah, so you dont believe because you dont understand. This seems to me to be a leap of logic...

Ah, so you dont believe because you dont understand. This seems to me to be a leap of logic...


Well, I could just claim ignorance until such a time as I do understand. But I know what you think of fence sitters.

YOU'RE ALL STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ugh.. no more of these stupid threads explaining "why I'm an Athiest" or "why that faith is bad" or any of that stuff. The point of a religion is to provide moral stability and inspiration in our lives. If you're too stubborn to accept the great things religion can give you and you want answers for EVERYthing, then good luck. Turn to science, there are a lot of questions that can't be answered in science. In fact, everything has unanswered questions. So quit picking on religion and making the religious ones here feel inferior to you becaues you look to deep into things to realize the beauty they contain.

Not all things are to be understood, some are to be simply accepted. That is what I am doing. I am accepting the fact that I was raised Catholic. I am accepting the fact that many disagree with my faith. But I, in turn, ask others to accept my faith if they wish for me to accept theirs becuase I recognize that everyone finds fufillment from different places.

sorry.. that was a bit of a flame... but you understand my point (hopefully)

YOU'RE ALL STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ugh.. no more of these stupid threads explaining "why I'm an Athiest" or "why that faith is bad" or any of that stuff. The point of a religion is to provide moral stability and inspiration in our lives. If you're too stubborn to accept the great things religion can give you and you want answers for EVERYthing, then good luck. Turn to science, there are a lot of questions that can't be answered in science. In fact, everything has unanswered questions. So quit picking on religion and making the religious ones here feel inferior to you becaues you look to deep into things to realize the beauty they contain.

Not all things are to be understood, some are to be simply accepted. That is what I am doing. I am accepting the fact that I was raised Catholic. I am accepting the fact that many disagree with my faith. But I, in turn, ask others to accept my faith if they wish for me to accept theirs becuase I recognize that everyone finds fufillment from different places.


And if you can understand that religion has also done bad things in history and not all of us need some fairy tail to make sense of our lives I would not look highly on your intelligence as well

And if you can understand that religion has also done bad things in history and not all of us need some fairy tail to make sense of our lives I would not look highly on your intelligence as well

Religion is a bit like soap: It only works when you use it, and use it propperly.

the thing about God is that he's a theory. Just like the big bang. you can either choose to believe that a higher power created us, or that there was absolute nothingness, and suddenly the nothingness exploded and we had a universe. last time i checked, the laws of physics and energy state that you can't create something out of nothing, so what could have possibly caused a big bang? and if you think there were gases and elements and other materials just kinda floating around, and they spontaneously combined to create planets and stuff, how did the gases and stuff get there in the first place? this same argument can be used against God, however. How is it that he's just there; that he just exists?

On a more personal note, I'll say that I believe in God, but i don't particularly agree with organized religion. In past history, the spread of Christianity has always led to war, and i'm something of a pacifist. I don't think it's right to kill someone simply because they don't think the same way you do. i'm almost something of a deist. i believe in God, but i feel that you can find evidence of him through nature and reasoning, not in church or any organized religion.

I'm an Athiest just to piss off God.

Jesus loves you Gartref.

Jesus loves you Gartref.

Well.... He's only human.

Jesus loves you Gartref.

Yes, yes he does :)

Well.... He's only human.

Only for 33 and somewhat years.

Yes, yes he does :)

He loves everyone, even Saddam.

The inherent problem in this thread is that logic and faith cannot be directly argued against each other as they are directly opposite paradigms.

I can PROVE that the bible doesn't make sense at times. But it doesn't matter because to a person believing in God it doesn't have to make sense.

Example for those that care, Leviticus. Yeah, what were they thinking when they wrote that (or what was God thinking when he divinely inspired that if you prefer).

Li ladera, you mentioned the "gaping holes" in evolution, as has every other creationist i have ever debated. These holes come from your poor understanding of evolution, geology and paleotology. You are indeed surrounded by fossils everywhere you step. You're probably standing on one right now. They are in our walls and floors, in the rock outside, in the concrete of our buildings. Of course you can't see them, they have been ground up, crushed into new kinds of rock, dirt and soil which in turn has been absorbed by plants and animals, spread about a lot, etc. Think of the way a tree can crunch up roads with its roots. Now think of the millions upon millions of years it has been since the dinosaurs evolved (some of them at least) into birds. For starters, fossils only form in very certain conditions. To then stay intact over the millions of years since or even the many millenia since our own ape like progenitors is extremely unlike. That we have as many fossils as we do is pretty darn amazing.

tierra de cristo, you mentioned the thousands of people who apparently witnessed the reborn christ. You then rubbished the poster that reminded you there is no evidence for this. You provided a link which, surprise, surprise, provided no evidence for this. Can i suggest you post some evidence for this. Indeed, the Romans were great record takers and we have vast swathes of written roman work from Christs tme. Not one bit mentions him. It mentions John the baptist (in not very favourable terms either) but not Christ. If thousands saw the reborn christ after they saw him die, there would be major roman reports about it. They were good at stuff like that.


arakaria, you said.

I don't say that science cannot explain things. But science is shallow and besides - theories changes faster every decade. 100 years ahead Scientific American could publish theories that buried all previous paradigms - in "Scientists' Social Column"... I think that religion is much better as a world-view and perspective than every-day-changing science. Is it so?

Seriously man, WTF? Let me see if i get this, religion is better because it clings to its "truths" rather than admitting that it doesn't know, or that it is wrong. Since when is self deceit and bullheadishness better than admitting your mistakes and correcting them? Unless of course when you are president, then you get a second term (but lets not go there).


Armandian Cheese, you said:
However, of all the religions in existance, Christianity has the most documented evidence. (lots o' historical records from the era, plus many of the events/areas referenced in the Bible have been confirmed through archeology, the Shroud of Turin and other miracles, etc.) Sure, it's not rock hard evidence, but it's more than other religions.

There are several reasons for this. Firstly, its one of the youngest religions (although the old testament is ancient). Secondly, many of the events are based around real stuff (such as the roman occupied jerusalem). The bible (especially the old testament) very much relates stories. These stories are rooted in their cultures, so of course these nations existed. Just because somewhere get totally by an earthquake about the time that the bible pegs it at, does not make the bibles interpretation correct (i.e. that God opened a six pack of environmental diseasters on them). Secondly, some of the real biggies have no proof associated with them. There is no record of all the jews leaving Eygpt in Eygptian records. Nor are the plagues mentioned by the Eygptians (and you would think they'd noticed something like that). Stuff like the Turin shroud is all so here and there at the moment with no conclusive studies conducted that its not proof either way.

Matosia, you said:
The new testament was cannonized in the first century, when most of the men who had spoken to Christ personally (or those who knew those men personally) were still alive

Ok, whole world of wrong. There was no formal bible until well after the Council of Nicea (325AD, and i'm pretty sure all the disciples were dead by then). There are still a whole bunch of gospels around that weren't included in the bible, many of which are very conprehensive. The Catholic church, which won the battles with the other early churchs (there was no single church built by Paul, directly authorised by Jesus, sorry catholics) did a pretty good job of eradicating the other gospels but a few have survived.


I am of course an Atheist (although given that i'm also of a scientific mindset, it should more properly be Agnostic, after all, if god descended from heaven tomorrow surrounded by angels and flaming swords and all, i'd rapidly change my mind) mainly because certain things about the whole "God infallibility" don't make sense. Why would god create Lucifer in the first place if he knew he was going to rebel (and he must have if he was omnipotent), it either stands that either a) god isn't all knowing and lucifer caught him by surprise or b) God knew that lucifer would rebel when he made him, knew that he would sentence lucifer to live in hell and become satan. Since he is also omnipotent, he could end satan and close hell permanently with the meerest twitch of his (not doubt bushy) eyebrow. So why does he? Why create a place so horrid as hell is reputed to be? If you admit that god is omnipotent you also have to see that that means that he condones satans actions and in fact created satan and hell in the first place.

Same with the create of knowledge in the garden of eden. Why stick it there when he KNEW that man and woman would chow down on the apples. There can be no free choice where an omnipotent being is concerned. While humans may think they have free choice, as God would be able to see what going to happen its no longer free choice. Especially the case with adam and eve. It could only be free will if god created them so that he couldn't forsee their actions. at which point he is no longer omnipotent.

And thats why i'm an atheist.

By going in so deep into argument and logic, you have lost the meaning of God.

God does not have to conform with human logic. If you want to try to understand Him completely, you will fail UTTERLY. God is not for you to understand 100%. You can't understand yourself completely, let alone understand the Almighty Lord.

It can be perfectly argued that evolution was created to make God less credible. They can always be argued both ways. There is no point ARGUING the existence of God.

Warning: *Stream of consciousness. May not make sense*

*gigasnip*

Wow... :eek:

Congratulations, I think you just won the prize for best first post ever.

Thanks!

Jesus loves you Gartref.


He doesn't love me. Not since I slept with his mother.

the thing about God is that he's a theory.
No. God is not a theory. If it was a theory, it would be testable. It is not testable, so it is not a theory. Please stop butchering scientific terminology to prove your point.

Just like the big bang. you can either choose to believe that a higher power created us, or that there was absolute nothingness, and suddenly the nothingness exploded and we had a universe. last time i checked, the laws of physics and energy state that you can't create something out of nothing, so what could have possibly caused a big bang?
The big bang never has the point that there was nothing before it happened, just that there wasn't our universe there before. Also, the laws of physics did not exist before the big bang, hell, in our timeline there was no time before the big bang. There are also a number of hypotheses (as they can't be tested) about how the big bang came about.

and if you think there were gases and elements and other materials just kinda floating around, and they spontaneously combined to create planets and stuff, how did the gases and stuff get there in the first place? this same argument can be used against God, however. How is it that he's just there; that he just exists?
You have demonstrated your ignorance of planet and star formation right here. I suspect that you don't know much about how the big bang occured either.

last time i checked, the laws of physics and energy state that you can't create something out of nothing, so what could have possibly caused a big bang?

Last time you checked you obviously didn't read the fine print. As a consequence of the uncertainty principal, packets of energy just pop into existence for a brief time and then cease to exist once more. You should get away from the classical stuff and learn quantum mechanics.

There are three main questions stopping me from converting to Chritsianity. If you do answer them, don't do it with 'God works in mysterious ways'.

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?
What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?

Some would argue there is "proof" in some senses. (From the philosophical view). So that is a grey area.


2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?

That is something very peculiar to the Catholic Church alone. Which is not found in the Eastern Orthodox churches, nor the many Protestant and Reformed Churches (which believe only God can forgive sins). So I wouldn't set that as a basis of view, since it is peculiar to a single sect.


3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. They used God[s] to explain fire, rain, love, human existance, etc. We have for some time been able to explain fire, rain and love(to an extent). Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?

Well, Islam belongs with Judaism and Christianity, since it is all based around the same "God" figure, and similar histories. The others, are legitmately "different" in scope and source. The same argument can be made for other ideologies; what makes Communism any more correct that Socialism, or Capitalism; or what makes a Republic any more correct than a Democracy, Theocracy, or Monarchy? If you question the validity of one type of ideology, you must question the validity of all ideological types, to be logically consistent.

Even amongst Christian groups ideological, or rather theological questions arise between sects... The Catholic, Orhodox, Reformed and Anglican groups have credo and paedo baptism... While Anabaptist, and other Protestant sects only see validity in Credo; what makes one more valid than another? Amongst Communional aspects, you have Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation and Illusionary views, what makes one more valid than another? These are question for individuals, as ideological considerations of their views in relation to their understanding; as opposed to being absolutetes in validity amongst disconnected logicial extrapolation. All must be taken in account of the logical extrapolation of the position in relation to "evidence" as seen from the person seeking adherance or belief of the procedure.

Catholics, the Orthodox, the Reformed and Anglicans arrive at paedo-baptism, simply because it is logical from their understanding of the covenential aspects of their religion and life; the Anabaptists and adherants do not see things convenentially, so from their foundation, it appears invalid.

In the same way, the Catholics see the Church as being powered by God for the forgiveness of sins... the Orthodox and Reformed faiths do not see this power in transfer... And thus see confession to God being of more importance than confession to the church body politic... And see "open-confession" as more of a aspect for the individual, than an action power being applied from God to the Church.... Different logical foundations.

I myself am Reformed in view; and science acts as an aspect of my faith as all others. The more I see the universe, and the more I know, the more certain I am of a God who created it (though I am a theistic evolutionist, not a YEC creationist). I see the world itself, and nature as proof. Though likely, being Reformed, I have a far different theological "image" of God, than was presented to you, since you have many foundationally catholic overtones in your base.

:headbang: as to your first argument, I've always felt that way about religion. To me the lack of proof or compelling evidence is the strongest argument for atheism. Many other principles, such as the existence of evil, can be sufficiently explained by free will and such (I think). But why would a god that loves us not want us to know he was there? It makes no sense. I'
ve heard a few people say that it maintains free will, but thats utter nonsense. Not giving everybody all the information is what diminishes free will, not increases it.

Well, Islam belongs with Judaism and Christianity, since it is all based around the same "God" figure, and similar histories. The others, are legitmately "different" in scope and source. The same argument can be made for other ideologies; what makes Communism any more correct that Socialism, or Capitalism, what makes a Republic any more correct than a Democracy, Theocracy, or Monarchy? If you question the validity of one type of ideology, you must question the validity of all ideological types, to be logically consistent.


In an ideology I look for what's best for everyone. Capitalism is better than communism because capitalists lead more comfortable lives than communists. Some of us are rich, some are poor (as opposed to us all being poor equally).

In a religion I don't want what's best for everyone, I want truth.

In an ideology I look for what's best for everyone. Capitalism is better than communism because capitalists lead more comfortable lives than communists. Some of us are rich, some are poor (as opposed to us all being poor equally).

In a religion I don't want what's best for everyone, I want truth.

Well religion is an ideology. Philosphy and Theology are similar disciplines, both are sciences of study (in slightly differing disciplines), and ones Theology, is in fact a product of ones Philosophy, and vice versa.

As for truth, your "truth" in ideology (or philosphy) is the same basis as that of religious philosphy (theology). Both seek truth in their own way, through study of the evidence and effects... Both are also not geared only in the realm of physical proof, but rather conceptual extrapolation and understanding of the underlying motivations and directives.

Merely because there are derivitive sects, does not equate to question of the validity of my own views in regards to philosophy or theology, though they do lead me to understand, and explore my views more, to assure myself of the truth in it as it pertains to myself.

I did not "Grow-up" and was not "born" into the Reformed view of things. I spent most of my life agnostic in the issue... I arrived at my views from personal study and contemplation on this issue... IOW, a study of what the "best-fit" to the evidence was, of the world, of a possible God, and the like. Theology, in this aspect, is a science, just as philosophy is.

When one arrives at a economical and sociological philosophy of things, they study the course of topic, and adhere to the model which best fits. The same applies in the study of Theological thought. The best-fit analysis of the situation and evidence, and not merely from biblical source, but from nature itself. When one looks at the "God" of certain christian sects, they see a picture of a all-benevolent being; nature testifies to make one question the validity of their argument... And it is no wonder someone taught of this God, would find it easy to discard that God for none at all... At the same time, finding a "God" which matches attributes of that which nature would testify, would best-fit that model.... My conception of God arrived from this concept, not just merely adherance to certain people's beliefs, but a development of my own, through study....

It is likely I am a theist, and you are an atheist for the same reason; we arrived at this place from personal study on the issue. And seeking truth in the matter.... And it is our strive for truth which takes us in our directions.

When I was a child, Jesus put gifts under the christmas tree. Thats my only proof that chistianity is legitimate... Oh and God didn't write the bible. Man did. Jesus didn't write the bible. jesus'd friends did.. And all you guys have friends right> They always get the storys wrong.

There are three main questions stopping me from converting to Chritsianity. If you do answer them, don't do it with 'God works in mysterious ways'.

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?

Because if his presence is too obvious, too many people will ask him for a whole bunch of different things. By keeping his existence something of a mystery it supposedly ensures that the "correct" elements of society will find the time to worship him. I don't believe in God in the traditional sense, but I think the fact that all creation in the universe requires a catalyst is one of the simple truths to our universe and it needs to be acknowledged.

Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?

This [the way I see it] is one of the lies that the church has pasted onto the story of Christ; the Bible is every bit as a revisionist attitude towards spirituality as Civics class is with the Civil War.

3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. They used God[s] to explain fire, rain, love, human existance, etc. We have for some time been able to explain fire, rain and love(to an extent). Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?

Because mankind has a need to believe that its efforts are not for nothing. I think many of us, if ever faced with this as a reality would probably go insane. I think there is to some extent a genetic perogative involved with seeking and clinging [sometimes blindly] to one's faith.

Originally Posted by The South Empire
last time i checked, the laws of physics and energy state that you can't create something out of nothing, so what could have possibly caused a big bang?
As a consequence of the uncertainty principal, packets of energy just pop into existence for a brief time and then cease to exist once more. You should get away from the classical stuff and learn quantum mechanics.
:confused: How does that work?

The uncertainty principle poses a limitation on the accuracy of measurements. How is that responsible for the Big Bang occuring?

<Snip> stopping me from converting to Chritsianity. If you do answer them, don't do it with 'God works in mysterious ways'. <Snip>


If the human population was a colorblind population, in that 99% didn’t see colors and only 1% did, what would we say about the people that claimed to be able to fathom vibrancy and inspiration from hue and saturation?

Would we mock them and tell them they were imagining things?

A thousand years ago it might have been pretty hard on the Color seers to prove that there was something about what they said. They wouldn’t yet have the technical know how to be able to build anything that could measure the wavelength of light and be able to prove that they could detect the differences.

Perhaps, the age we live in is still a spiritual dark age, pre-spiritual theory if you will, the people that can detect God swear up and down that they do, but the rest of us just sit around thinking them silly and saying things like, “you can’t prove that.”

If God is real, and only 1% of us can actually fathom and perceive the “luminosity” of God’s existence, how would the world behave any differently than it does today? It might not change a thing. The God seers would continue to insist that they detect one, and the non-seers would wonder why the stupid people and God story never goes away. The exact same as the world acts now.

If the human population was a colorblind population, in that 99% didn’t see colors and only 1% did, what would we say about the people that claimed to be able to fathom vibrancy and inspiration from hue and saturation?

Would we mock them and tell them they were imagining things?

A thousand years ago it might have been pretty hard on the Color seers to prove that there was something about what they said. They wouldn’t yet have the technical know how to be able to build anything that could measure the wavelength of light and be able to prove that they could detect the differences.

Perhaps, the age we live in is still a spiritual dark age, pre-spiritual theory if you will, the people that can detect God swear up and down that they do, but the rest of us just sit around thinking them silly and saying things like, “you can’t prove that.”

If God is real, and only 1% of us can actually fathom and perceive the “luminosity” of God’s existence, how would the world behave any differently than it does today? It might not change a thing. The God seers would continue to insist that they detect one, and the non-seers would wonder why the stupid people and God story never goes away. The exact same as the world acts now.

The difference is they can factually backup what they see

You seem to have the experience to know.

"Posts: 2"i have experience and i agree with him

The difference is they can factually backup what they see
No, they can't. Not what they *see*.

The colour-seers' experiments to demonstrate the existence of that end of the spectrum light would still fall on colourblind eyes. The colourblind people would still not be able to fathom colour, nor what the colour-seers get out of seeing it. "Golly, that blue shade makes me happy." "Huh? What are you talking about?"

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?

Faith. Its a test of our faith

2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?

Because god realized he was wong and told his son to do it. Men close to god can fogive too.

3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?

Because christianity is right and the rest are wrong. If we're right than clearly everything else is wrong. Only one can be correct. Its ours. Because I believe.


Im an athiest btw.

No, they can't. Not what they *see*.

The colour-seers' experiments to demonstrate the existence of that end of the spectrum light would still fall on colourblind eyes. The colourblind people would still not be able to fanthom colour, nor what the colour-seers get out of seeing it. "Golly, that blue shade makes me happy." "Huh? What are you talking about?"
But at least they can prove the blue wave light the feelings invoked may not necessarily be easy to test but eventually they will be (when the mind is figured out further)

Even if they can not fathom what it personally means it is still a measurable known quantity … like infrared we may not be able to see it naturally but it is a known detectable quantity

But at least they can prove the blue wave light the feelings invoked may not necessarily be easy to test but eventually they will be (when the mind is figured out further)

Even if they can not fathom what it personally means it is still a measurable known quantity … like infrared we may not be able to see it naturally but it is a known detectable quantity
? I was referring to the feelings a blue colour evoked, not the other way around, but okay. ;)

My point is that the measurable known quantity does not give the colourblind people any idea what 'blue' is.

? I was referring to the feelings a blue colour evoked, not the other way around, but okay. ;)

My point is that the measurable known quantity does not give the colourblind people any idea what 'blue' is.
But with religion not only do you not have the ability to share what the feeling evokes but you don’t have any verifiable proof that blue even exists

You have to take it on faith that blue exists and that it evokes those specific indescribable feelings
(we probably lost most people by now lol)

Because god realized he was wong and told his son to do it. Men close to god can fogive too.
It's good to have a fallible god.

It's good to have a fallible god.
unfortunatly tis' so. Notice how his bible needed to be amended?

unfortunatly tis' so. Notice how his bible needed to be amended?
If you notice he/she does not adhere to the bible nor most religious teachings :) he/she is probably what I would be if I could take the leap of faith (it makes him/her hard to argue against because has no problems with things like a not all loving /powerful/knowing deity which are the easiest to argue against logically)

If you notice he/she does not adhere to the bible nor most religious teachings :) he/she is probably what I would be if I could take the leap of faith (it makes him/her hard to argue against because has no problems with things like a not all loving /powerful/knowing deity which are the easiest to argue against logically)
who is this s/he your talking about?

But at least they can prove the blue wave light the feelings invoked may not necessarily be easy to test but eventually they will be (when the mind is figured out further)

Even if they can not fathom what it personally means it is still a measurable known quantity … like infrared we may not be able to see it naturally but it is a known detectable quantity

You're missing the point. A thousand years ago, no one could prove infrared because of the lack of technology. Maybe in 1000 years someone will develop "God goggles" allowing anyone to see God (sticking with the colorblind analogy).

I am agnostic - I'm not sure if God exists or not. I'm also a skeptic, by nature, and need substantial proof to believe in something. God is one of those things I've never seen proof for, so until then, I can't believe.... Hmm, maybe that makes me an athiest.

But with religion not only do you not have the ability to share what the feeling evokes but you don’t have any verifiable proof that blue even exists

You have to take it on faith that blue exists and that it evokes those specific indescribable feelings
(we probably lost most people by now lol)
No one has an ability to share feelings evoked. No two experiences of emotion are identical. Even in the largest of Roman Catholic gatherings, everyone feels what they feel alone, and can only imagine that everyone else feels the same. And they do summon that imagining, strongly, and without doubt. Words--specifically metaphor and the feelings it invokes--and actions only provide us a means to judge if we are feeling the same as others.

I like this colourblind analogy. Extrapolate this hint of the existence of "something" into the scenario you yourself presented earlier, a time in the future when man knows more than he does today. Perhaps there is no evidence of it because science does not know where to look. Better yet, perhaps it's been under his nose the whole time, unnoticed. The colour is a demonstratable wavelength because other frequencies of wavelength are known. But if its "spectrum" is not known, and if there is no incentive to look for it, then there is little possibility of it being found.

There are three main questions stopping me from converting to Chritsianity. If you do answer them, don't do it with 'God works in mysterious ways'.

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?
What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?Hmmm...Why don't I want you to have proof of my existence? Well, if people were shown what I really looked like, where I really lived etc., religion would lose all its mysticism and its spirituality. In other words, it would cease to be religion.

2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?Another tough question. I'm not sure exactly why My son did that, he was really young and irresponsible back then... ;)

3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. They used God[s] to explain fire, rain, love, human existance, etc. We have for some time been able to explain fire, rain and love(to an extent). Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?
Christianity is not more correct than any other religion. In fact the only truth is in Jainism. I don't see why all of you haven't seen that already and converted.

Why people blame Me for all that stuff, I can't imagine. Apparently they think I control everything. All I did was invent the proton, the neutron, and the electron. Really, I didn't do anything at all. Yet they say I'm all-powerful, all-forgiving, you know... I ought to talk to them about it sometime.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

To continue in with vision as an analogy...

If my son looks at a cloud and tells me it looks like a turtle, does that mean it's a turtle? Or is my son merely using a convenient frame of reference to which he can relate when he tries to contemplate what he sees and does not fully understand? I can explain water vapor, condensation, air currents, light refraction/reflection and all that...but he will still see a turtle. It doesn't mean he's really seeing one.

To further the discussion with analogies...what about the boogey man and other monsters that hide in kids' closets and under beds? Kids are certain they exist. They're certain they see them. What's more, I can't disprove their existence either! It doesn't make them real.

No one has an ability to share feelings evoked. No two experiences of emotion are identical. Even in the largest of Roman Catholic gatherings, everyone feels what they feel alone, and can only imagine that everyone else feels the same. And they do summon that imagining, strongly, and without doubt. Words--specifically metaphor and the feelings it invokes--and actions only provide us a means to judge if we are feeling the same as others.

I like this colourblind analogy. Extrapolate this hint of the existence of "something" into the scenario you yourself presented earlier, a time in the future when man knows more than he does today. Perhaps there is no evidence of it because science does not know where to look. Better yet, perhaps it's been under his nose the whole time, unnoticed. The colour is a demonstratable wavelength because other frequencies of wavelength are known. But if its "spectrum" is not known, and if there is no incentive to look for it, then there is little possibility of it being found.

But if it is provable and compleatly mesurable then would it really be "god" as opposed to just a masivly strong being

But if it is provable and compleatly mesurable then would it really be "god" as opposed to just a masivly strong being
I'm sure it would be something to please the atheists. ;)

I'm sure it would be something to please the atheists. ;)
I don’t care what pleases us/them (kind of atheist agnostic) as long as it’s the truth or as close to as we can get :)

I don’t care what pleases us/them (kind of atheist agnostic) as long as it’s the truth or as close to as we can get :)
What if I told you that the truth was that I and I alone am the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, but for not believing in me you will be punished severely in the afterlife? Would you believe that? I don't.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

your a commie catholic and an atheist? Who cares

What if I told you that the truth was that I and I alone am the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, but for not believing in me you will be punished severely in the afterlife? Would you believe that? I don't.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
No I don’t believe in a deity and even if there was one I chose not to worship someone who would be petty enough to punish me for eternity because I had natural doubts

No I don’t believe in a deity and even if there was one I chose not to worship someone who would be petty enough to punish me for eternity because I had natural doubtsDon't worry, I'm actually going to reward you in the afterlife. For saying that. I admire people who are brazen enough to challenge the universal authority. :)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Originally Posted by UpwardThrust
No I don’t believe in a deity and even if there was one I chose not to worship someone who would be petty enough to punish me for eternity because I had natural doubts

Don't worry, I'm actually going to reward you in the afterlife. For saying that. I admire people who are brazen enough to challenge the universal authority. :)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Actually, that's not exactly what it means. It means something more like this; We are all dying and on our sinking ship, it's damaged beyond repair and going under in the Sea of Sin. God, upon hearing our cries says, "here, I'm throwing you a rope, all you have to do is hold on and I'll do all the work to pull you up to safety. All you have to do is believe in me and the rope, and I'll get you up here with me."

Some of us will grab the rope, others will not. But the people that don't grab the rope can't really turn around afterwards and blame God for their predictament on the sunken ship, because God he threw them the rope" But that's what you guys are saying when you say God is sending you to hell because you didn't believe in him. No, the hell is already on the horizon and coming up fast, he offers you a way to turn your course.

Actually, that's not exactly what it means. It means something more like this; We are all dying and on our sinking ship, it's damaged beyond repair and going under in the Sea of Sin. God, upon hearing our cries says, "here, I'm throwing you a rope, all you have to do is hold on and I'll do all the work to pull you up to safety. All you have to do is believe in me and the rope, and I'll get you up here with me."

Some of us will grab the rope, others will not. But the people that don't grab the rope can't really turn around afterwards and blame God for their predictament on the sunken ship, because God he threw them the rope" But that's what you guys are saying when you say God is sending you to hell because you didn't believe in him. No, the hell is already on the horizon and coming up fast, he offers you a way to turn your course.


I know where you're coming from. I've grown up with christian teachings all my life. The one question is that god in your sense created us and this sinking boat. He created all mechanisms by which we chose to be on this sinking boat. Most christians say free will but according to christianity got endowed us with all our individual personalities. which would go back again to god being the cause of our state. Its more like "i'll make this leaky boat and this sea and in my omnipresent mercy i'll hold out a rope to some and see who's takes it." Doesn't sound like a loving god to me.

Actually, that's not exactly what it means. It means something more like this; We are all dying and on our sinking ship, it's damaged beyond repair and going under in the Sea of Sin. God, upon hearing our cries says, "here, I'm throwing you a rope, all you have to do is hold on and I'll do all the work to pull you up to safety. All you have to do is believe in me and the rope, and I'll get you up here with me."

Some of us will grab the rope, others will not. But the people that don't grab the rope can't really turn around afterwards and blame God for their predictament on the sunken ship, because God he threw them the rope" But that's what you guys are saying when you say God is sending you to hell because you didn't believe in him. No, the hell is already on the horizon and coming up fast, he offers you a way to turn your course.

If you had any gumption, you'd repair the sinking ship instead of whining to God for help all the time..

Hypothetically.

Look, I am a christian and have been for a very long time. Here is my basic rationale: I have nothing to lose. One thing that all religions have in common is that you can't be a member of more than one at a time. If I have chosen correctly, I get to go live in heaven. If there is no God, I have lost nothing by being a good christian-thus a good person. If I have chosen incorrectly, I go to hell, but as I would go to hell if I didn't beleive in any god anyway, I see no reason to continue being a Atheist.

Also, the science that you cling to as a higher power would not have come into being without an orderly god. The early scientists were all christian, and science can only co-exist with a deity if that deity is orderly. The greek gods, for example, did things for all kinds of different reasons, which makes science harder if any random event can be explained by a freaked-out god. As Albert Einstein once said "God does not play dice."

Look, I am a christian and have been for a very long time. Here is my basic rationale: I have nothing to lose. One thing that all religions have in common is that you can't be a member of more than one at a time. If I have chosen correctly, I get to go live in heaven. If there is no God, I have lost nothing by being a good christian-thus a good person. If I have chosen incorrectly, I go to hell, but as I would go to hell if I didn't beleive in any god anyway, I see no reason to continue being a Atheist.


Thats a fairly weak basis for a believe system, that belief is better than the alternative. Either way thats not true faith. I doubt the god that made hell the default state for all humankind will let you in because you have made belief your contingency plan.

Thats a fairly weak basis for a believe system, that belief is better than the alternative. Either way thats not true faith. I doubt the god that made hell the default state for all humankind will let you in because you have made belief your contingency plan.

Exactly. Heaven is my "safety" afterlife. Valhalla is my first choice.

Thats a fairly weak basis for a believe system, that belief is better than the alternative. Either way thats not true faith. I doubt the god that made hell the default state for all humankind will let you in because you have made belief your contingency plan.

What? Do you think God is like a bouncer at the door of a popular night club and only the people with the right connections will get in? Maybe only the good people? Maybe only the faithful people?

Nah, you can't earn your place in heaven by doing anything within your power, you can't have enough faith and you cant be in the right club to demand the right of going in. But if you knock, the door will be opened, your addmission is already paid for you, you could never have afforded it, all you have to do is claim the ticket now.

What? Do you think God is like a bouncer at the door of a popular night club and only the people with the right connections will get in? Maybe only the good people? Maybe only the faithful people?

Nah, you can't earn your place in heaven by doing anything within your power, you can't have enough faith and you cant be in the right club to demand the right of going in. But if you knock, the door will be opened, your addmission is already paid for you, you could never have afforded it, all you have to do is claim the ticket now.

You forget to add that if i don't take this ticket i end up in hell. Like i said in my other post. If god gave me my intellect and personality, and if through the sum of these i chose not to take the ticket as this night club looks more than a tad bit shifty, then how can he hold me responsible and send me to hell?

*wonders* I wonder where the humans came up with the idea that there is anything after death.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You forget to add that if i don't take this ticket i end up in hell. Like i said in my other post. If god gave me my intellect and personality, and if through the sum of these i chose not to take the ticket as this night club looks more than a tad bit shifty, then how can he hold me responsible and send me to hell?
He didn't send you to hell, you sent yourself. Heaven is not a night-club, it is the act of being "near" God. Hell on the other hand is the act of NOT being near God.

You cannot be near God if you are not cleaned of sin, if you are cleansed you will be near God by default. It's quite simple really, only you don't have soap good enough to clean yourself, you have to ask God to use his soap.

*wonders* I wonder where the humans came up with the idea that there is anything after death.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Someone came back and told us.

Someone came back and told us.

More like we were scared senseless of it and told ourselves a lie to help allay those fears

More like we were scared senseless of it and told ourselves a lie to help allay those fears
We all told ourselves the same lie? Sounds like a conspiracy, only problem with that is that it assumes a state of universal human co-operation across many lines, like cultural, ethnic and the lines of time itself. And when you consider how the human race can hardly be forced to agree to share the same planet for even five minutes without fighting, THAT kind of conspiracy agreement would take a miracle only God could pull off.

But now that you mention it, the belief has done all of those things over the years now hasn't it? If it were true, the lines of ethnic and culture and even co-operation would not be a hindrance now would it? It would seem to be more improbable to NOT be true than it IS true, considering the evidence of persistence of belief huh?

He didn't send you to hell, you sent yourself. Heaven is not a night-club, it is the act of being "near" God. Hell on the other hand is the act of NOT being near God.

You cannot be near God if you are not cleaned of sin, if you are cleansed you will be near God by default. It's quite simple really, only you don't have soap good enough to clean yourself, you have to ask God to use his soap.


Ah but then the age old question. Why would our loving creator create a system where the vilest of sinners and me who just doesn't believe to the same place? I know that all sin counts to separate you from god if you haven't asked for forgiveness. But all in all you have to admit that it is an unfair unrealistic system. You may say that under your teachings god doesn't send us to hell but the bible says the default state for humans is hell. Despite this soap that god may have available to clean us, this cannot be fair. In the garden of eden where sin began god gave Adam the mechanisms he needed to sin, the temptation,the forbidden item, and the curiosity needed to overcome the warning. The odds seem pretty stacked to me. Then to rub it in further his sin according to the bible reaches across generations to all of us. God so graciously came down to die (which again tenders arguements since he is god and can't die as we can and therefore negates the significance). All in all it seems like he's far too full of himself and has put us all in a situation where its worship him or else. The whole idea is just silly.

Ah but then the age old question. Why would our loving creator create a system where the vilest of sinners and me who just doesn't believe to the same place? I know that all sin counts to separate you from god if you haven't asked for forgiveness. But all in all you have to admit that it is an unfair unrealistic system. You may say that under your teachings god doesn't send us to hell but the bible says the default state for humans is hell. Despite this soap that god may have available to clean us, this cannot be fair. In the garden of eden where sin began god gave Adam the mechanisms he needed to sin, the temptation,the forbidden item, and the curiosity needed to overcome the warning. The odds seem pretty stacked to me. Then to rub it in further his sin according to the bible reaches across generations to all of us. God so graciously came down to die (which again tenders arguements since he is god and can't die as we can and therefore negates the significance). All in all it seems like he's far too full of himself and has put us all in a situation where its worship him or else. The whole idea is just silly.

Agreed, it is silly. How the God of all creation could possibly bother to love us (you, me, everyone individually) enough to even allow us the opportunity to be cleansed is beyond me.

It is not within my power to imagine what would be IF there was no fall in Eden, IF we weren't born in the enemy controlled territory of existence in Sin. Would we already be saved, would we be born and immediately raised to the scope of divinity, I do not know. But I do know that it doesn't cost anything to get out where we are now, if we don't like it here we don't have to stay here.

Freewill must be terribly important to the big guy, that's all I can imagine.

Agreed, it is silly. How the God of all creation could possibly bother to love us (you, me, everyone individually) enough to even allow us the opportunity to be cleansed is beyond me.


Well it would be silly of him not to have any affection for his creation. Which is my point that you keep missing. If he created us then he created us with the imperfections that allow us to sin in the first place and it doesn't makse sense. Thats all i'm trying to get across.

That's right you don't need a priest since not all forms of Christianity have one. Mine for example has a pastor/reverend. Don't turn this into a stupid battle over religion because it's offensive and no you will never find proff on anything in a single forum. All it is is everyone's opinion. By the way anyone who doesn't believe is going straight to hell.

...Don't turn this into a stupid battle over religion because it's offensive...

...All it is is everyone's opinion....

...By the way anyone who doesn't believe is going straight to hell...

Priceless hypocrisy. I love it. Good work.

Well it would be silly of him not to have any affection for his creation. Which is my point that you keep missing. If he created us then he created us with the imperfections that allow us to sin in the first place and it doesn't makse sense. Thats all i'm trying to get across.
You've made your point clear, I do understand what you are pondering. What I'm saying is that it (being born into the Sin of this world now) seems to be necessary for true freewill to take place, We need to be put in a position of risk, the risk that we might NOT end up being saved. If we were saved by default, when we have never 'chosen' anything for ourselves, we would be nothing more than plants in a garden.

God has created so much freedom of choice that we are entirely free. God allows us the opportunity to never come near him without our own consent. That could not have happened if we are born near him, our choices would be tainted by proximity to him.

God calls us all, if you choose to answer that call then being born in Sin will not be a hindrance to you becoming cleansed and near him, because he has already built the bridge back to himself and made a place available for you. Just choose to cross it, or not, it’s your choice.

Actually, that's not exactly what it means. It means something more like this; We are all dying and on our sinking ship, it's damaged beyond repair and going under in the Sea of Sin. God, upon hearing our cries says, "here, I'm throwing you a rope, all you have to do is hold on and I'll do all the work to pull you up to safety. All you have to do is believe in me and the rope, and I'll get you up here with me."
Some of us will grab the rope, others will not. But the people that don't grab the rope can't really turn around afterwards and blame God for their predictament on the sunken ship, because God he threw them the rope" But that's what you guys are saying when you say God is sending you to hell because you didn't believe in him. No, the hell is already on the horizon and coming up fast, he offers you a way to turn your course.

Beautiful m8 just beautiful.

Priceless hypocrisy. I love it. Good work.

Not really, its just his opinion, which I totally agree with.

The initial post of this topic: Decently well thought out and containing the seeds of a good, rational discussion.

The topic creator's subsequent posts and general attitude: trollish.

I have nothing further to add to this topic but a quote that adequetly describes one reason why I am an atheist:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

Not really, its just his opinion, which I totally agree with.
:rolleyes:

I know where you're coming from. I've grown up with christian teachings all my life. The one question is that god in your sense created us and this sinking boat. He created all mechanisms by which we chose to be on this sinking boat. Most christians say free will but according to christianity got endowed us with all our individual personalities. which would go back again to god being the cause of our state. Its more like "i'll make this leaky boat and this sea and in my omnipresent mercy i'll hold out a rope to some and see who's takes it." Doesn't sound like a loving god to me.

He also created Lucifer the archangel, who became Satan, hes the one causing the leaky boat, not God.

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: wow I did two. :)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: wow I did two. :)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :p :p

My full house beats your pair.

The initial post of this topic: Decently well thought out and containing the seeds of a good, rational discussion.
the topic creator's subsequent posts and general attitude: trollish.
I have nothing further to add to this topic but a quote that adequetly describes one reason why I am an atheist:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

But how can the 'other person' be an atheist, if he believes in at least one God, its not even an intelligent statement.

But how can the 'other' person be an athiest, if he believes in one God, its not even an intelligent statement.

Ok, nevermind, I'll bite.

How about you address the substance of the post instead of dodging by arguing semantics and tossing around ad hominems?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :p :p

My full house beats your pair.

:p :p :p :p :p
Royal Flush!

Ok, nevermind, I'll bite.

How about you address the substance of the post instead of dodging by arguing semantics and tossing around ad hominems?

Just doing what Ive learnt off others in here who attack my posts m8, and its ajustified one too, not just a silly flame.

If you had any gumption, you'd repair the sinking ship instead of whining to God for help all the time..
Hypothetically.

Sometimes asking for Gods help may be the only answer, if you have never been your own worst enemy and practically destroyed your life almost, and others around you, where guilt if your lucky enough to still have a consience, can so overwhelm you, you feel nothing but worthlessness.
Trust me, unless yourve been there, you couldnt possibly understand what despair can do to a person.

:headbang: That would be a flush or a straight flush if there was any order. The best you have there is four of a kind.
:rolleyes: :p :gundge: :D :eek: is a royal flush.

Sometimes asking for Gods help may be the only answer, if you have never been your own worst enemy and practically destroyed your life almost, and others around you, where guilt if your lucky enough to still have a consience, can so overwhelm you, you feel nothing but worthlessness.
Trust me, unless yourve been there, you couldnt possibly understand what despair can do to a person.

Funny because if we have free will then asking for god's help does absolutely squat.

He also created Lucifer the archangel, who became Satan, hes the one causing the leaky boat, not God.

God as a definition is omniscient. Therefore when he created lucifer he should have known lucifer was going to fall and become satan. To say that god did not know is to say he's not all knowing. To say god did know is to say he knew that satan would put holes in the boat and created him anyway. Both choices which aren't very flattering.

More like we were scared senseless of it and told ourselves a lie to help allay those fears

But why would you be scared senseless of it? Ive lost count of the number of proffessed aethiests who come on here and brag how they dont care if they die, and whether theres something after death or not.
Id say humans being the intelligent creatures they are, just sense this isnt all there is, whether we can prove it or not, and so acknowelege its wonder.

God as a definition is omniscient. Therefore when he created lucifer he should have known lucifer was going to fall and become satan. To say that god did not know is to say he's not all knowing. To say god did know is to say he knew that satan would put holes in the boat and created him anyway. Both choices which aren't very flattering.

Who knows.

Who knows.

Way to tap dance around that queation

:headbang: That would be a flush or a straight flush if there was any order. The best you have there is four of a kind.
:rolleyes: :p :gundge: :D :eek: is a royal flush.

Yeah I know, stupid computer kept saying I had too many emoticons on there.

*picks up monitor and smashes it against wall

Way to tap dance around that queation

No, its a fair answer, and an honest one.

Yeah I know, stupid computer kept saying I had too many emoticins on there.

Yea apparantly quoting my original full house post or your four of a kind one does that.

No, its a fair answer, and an honest one.

I hope your not a theist if thats your answer.

Yea apparantly quoting my original full house post or your four of a kind one does that.

Well Im glad we cleared that up, so theres a set limit on emoticons used in one post, I take it?

Well Im glad we cleared that up, so theres a set limit on emoticons used in one post, I take it?

Why ask a question you already know the answer too?

I hope your not a theist if thats your answer.

No, RC all the way, with a fond regard and respect for the ancient beliefs of Celts and Greeks.

Why ask a question you already know the answer too?

No, you misunderstand, what IS the set limit to emoticons in one post, as in, do you know what it is?

Exactly. Heaven is my "safety" afterlife. Valhalla is my first choice.

Hate to break this to you, but Valhalla isnt permanent, after along time feasting wenching drinking etc, you all go at each other with weapons, until no ones left.

Hate to break this to you, but Valhalla isnt permanent, after along time feasting wenching drinking etc, you all go at each other with weapons, until no ones left.

Yea except after everyone dies your all resurected and get to do it all over again. I wouldnt mind this afterlife.

Just doing what Ive learnt off others in here who attack my posts m8, and its ajustified one too, not just a silly flame.

I hate to sound 50 years old but...

"If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do it?"

Someone else doing something does not make it acceptable in a debate to completely ignore the meaning of something, pick on the semantics, and call someone and idiot.

That would take away a certain ammount of free will. You choose either to believe in Him or not.

Eh? No, that's complete nonsense. It wouldn't take away free will any more than the blatant existence of clouds does. God's existence would just be a mundane fact of life, and nobody would be concerned that God existing was impeding their free will somehow.

Just a difference of context. Wars were not considered a "bad thing" in earlier times,

wtf tell that one to the peasants.

Yea except after everyone dies your all resurected and get to do it all over again. I wouldnt mind this afterlife.

Its permanent isnt it? The second death in Valhalla?
And if you dont mind getting an axe cleaving your head in two...

Its permanent isnt it? The second death in Valhalla?
And if you dont mind getting an axe cleaving your head in two...

No death in valhalla is not permenant. You eat fight have sex eat again and then fight in some sort of order. If you die in the fight you get brought back to life afterwards.

[QUOTE=Chaos Experiment]I hate to sound 50 years old but...
"If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do it?"

Depends on the reason why they were jumping, and how high it was.

Someone else doing something does not make it acceptable in a debate to completely ignore the meaning of something, pick on the semantics, and call someone and idiot.

Well I suggest if you feel that angry about it, to go and look at some of the threads Ive started, and have a go at some of the posters there for doing exactly the same thing to my thread, go to it you champion of meanings you.
And can you put up also in post quote where I called the poster an idiot.

No death in valhalla is not permenant. You eat fight have sex eat again and then fight in some sort of order. If you die in the fight you get brought back to life afterwards.

Oh right, some poster told me the second death was a permanent one.

Well Im glad we cleared that up, so theres a set limit on emoticons used in one post, I take it?

Yeah... so lay off the emoticons. Besides, MSB - when you use a smilie it's like Charles Manson wearing clown make-up - It doesn't make it funny, it just makes it that much more creepy and horrible.

:fluffle:

Oh right, some poster told me the second death was a permanent one.

No that would be a sucky afterlife. Valahalla is all about getting drunk, killing people, and having sex for eternity.

There are three main questions stopping me from converting to Chritsianity. If you do answer them, don't do it with 'God works in mysterious ways'.

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?
What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?

2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?

3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. They used God[s] to explain fire, rain, love, human existance, etc. We have for some time been able to explain fire, rain and love(to an extent). Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?



Three simple answers.

1.) Many people have announced to the world that they were God. These people tend to be captured and dragged away by people in white coats. What if one of them was indeed God? I know a guy who thinks he's Jesus. This guy is awesome at electric bass. What if he really is Jesus? That would explain his demigodly bass aptitude.
2.) He didn't. Jesus may have been eccentric, but I don't imagine he actually told his followers "Look homies, if you sin, you gotta go to this old guy wearing a fancy robe and ask for forgiveness." He probably thought that people could talk directly to God. Hell, he apparently had plenty of direct face time with the man upstairs.
3.) Nothing.

[QUOTE]
Well I suggest if you feel that angry about it, to go and look at some of the threads Ive started, and have a go at some of the posters there for doing exactly the same thing to my thread, go to it you champion of meanings you.
And can you put up also in post quote where I called the poster an idiot.

I am not addressing your calling any specific poster an idiot, I'm talking about you calling Stephen Roberts' assertion un-intelligent by picking on the semantics of a statement that is clearly meant to be partially tongue-in-cheek as an attempt to further highlight the assertion itself.

Yeah... so lay off the emoticons. Besides, MSB - when you use a smilie it's like Charles Manson wearing clown make-up - It doesn't make it funny, it just makes it that much more creepy and horrible.
:fluffle:

:) good.

[QUOTE=Mutated Sea Bass]
I am not addressing your calling any specific poster an idiot, I'm talking about you calling Stephen Roberts' assertion un-intelligent by picking on the semantics of a statement that is clearly meant to be partially tongue-in-cheek as an attempt to further highlight the assertion itself.

Whatever.

He doesn't love me. Not since I slept with his mother.

I am going to pretend i never read this post.

I am going to pretend i never read this post.

(Second time I wrote this tonight)
See? That's why religious threads are stupid!

There's always someone determined to make a fool of him/herself...

Funny because if we have free will then asking for god's help does absolutely squat.
Bingo.

Bingo.
Lol its always funny to watch how your non conventional view of god throws off some of the arguments :)

There are three main questions stopping me from converting to Chritsianity. If you do answer them, don't do it with 'God works in mysterious ways'.

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?
What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?

2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?

3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. They used God[s] to explain fire, rain, love, human existance, etc. We have for some time been able to explain fire, rain and love(to an extent). Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?


Enough with the religious threads already. I'm glad that you have reached a decision that suits you, but enough already.

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?
What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?

Erm. He did give us proof. He came into the world. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. As for the sort of thing "I want to see God" mentality, thats not God hiding himself, thats just the nature of God and the nature of us. We cant "see" God because of our human nature and our comprehention capaciy.


2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?

Thats a Catholic idea, one that isnt very Biblical.


3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?

Jesus amoung other Gods (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0849943272/qid=1116516045/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-5958783-6622232)

Read this, it will help you understand a great deal.

Enough with the religious threads already. I'm glad that you have reached a decision that suits you, but enough already.
Why? This is a debate forum the trick if you don’t want to discuss something is to not go into the clearly marked religious thread

Page 28. I have to wonder: will this answerless argument ever end?

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?
What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?

Answers:
A.) God does wish us to have some proof of His existence, but not enough to proove irrefutably. If we all KNEW beyond the shadow of a doubt that God existed, there would be no faith, there would be no stretching of ourselves, who would put their foot out of line if they KNEW for a fact that God was watching and would be displeased. No one! We would all do everything we were told. It would be "behave or be smitten".

B.)It is not what God gets out of the deal. In fact God doesn't NEED us at all. It seems kinda silly to think that an omnipotent person NEEDS us. He doesn't. We NEED him. He put us here not solely to worship him like some tyrant. No, not at all. We are here to learn, to grow, and to become like Him. He is our Father and the Father of our spirits (literally). Our time on earth is like a divine university. Just as you send your children away to school to learn of the world for themselves, make their own decisions, have let downs, have accomplishments etc. So did God. We came here to get a physical body, just like He has. (except that His is perfect) And one day we will return to His presence to make an accounting of what we have done with our time in "school". He doesn't let us KNOW because there would be no growth. We need to stretch out and get to know Him through the clues that He left. He also gave out the Holy Ghost to help us KNOW when something is right, but it is an emotional knowledge rather than physical "hard facts".



2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?

Ok. Jesus NEVER gave power to forgive sins. That is something the Catholic church iniciated. The church that Christ made was not the Catholic. It was something they came up with to help in their conquering the world. (no that is not just an opinion, they actually tried to. ever heard of Mexico..South America...Conquistadores...Cortez..etc...they were out to Conquer the world)



3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?

Well, Christianity derives from Judeaism, it is infact almost the same thing, just modified slightly. Judeaism derives from the Hebrews. The Hebrews and the Muslims have common ancestry. In fact the Muslims broke off from the house of Abraham when Isreal (the person) was on the earth. Through the long history of the earth there has always been a chosen people and those that do not keep the covenant and break off from the chosen people.
Cain broke off, Ham broke off, Essau broke off, Ishmael broke off, and the Jews broke off. From Adam down to the present there has been a single line of God's people. Those who broke off started their own belief systems based loosely or not at all on the original Hebraic code. But there was one (or more) commandment that they couldn't work with and they broke away. Cain could not handle reprimand, Ham married outside of the chosen people, Essau didn't care for spirituality, and the Jews did not believe that Christ was the Messiah.

However, God's work went on despite them. Ham's seed populated Africa, Japheth's seed populated Asia, Essau populated the middle east. And they all had their own traditions.

That doen't mean they are bad. They just do not have the FULL truth.

The same thing happened in Christianity. There are a lot a schisms and break off groups, like Catholics and Protestants. They try to work within their knowledge of the truth but lack the FULL truth.

Religion is not merely a way of explaining the world...true it has turned into that through lack of understanding of God's work, but there has always been one God. Though people call him by different names, God, Elohim, Yave, Allah, etc. He is one. Not to say that all the methods of worshiping that one are correct, just saying that they are all focussed on the same Being, to varying degrees of truthfulness.

As for the sort of thing "I want to see God" mentality, thats not God hiding himself, thats just the nature of God and the nature of us. We cant "see" God because of our human nature and our comprehention capaciy.

That's not much of an answer. Why did God create us without the capacity to see him, then? It equates to hiding.

Page 28. I have to wonder: will this answerless argument ever end?
God, I hope not.

Lol its always funny to watch how your non conventional view of god throws off some of the arguments :)
With all the conventional views of what "God" is being displayed, there is little to argue against (meaning it would be necessary to start from scratch with each poster, and that's quite impossible).

That's not much of an answer. Why did God create us without the capacity to see him, then? It equates to hiding.
No, it means you're using the wrong organ - you don't use your eyes to see god, you use your heart.

No, it means you're using the wrong organ - you don't use your eyes to see god, you use your heart.

Dont think I could have said it better myself.

No, it means you're using the wrong organ - you don't use your eyes to see god, you use your heart.

No, I tried that... it just left pinkish smears on the glass....

No, I tried that... it just left pinkish smears on the glass....
Maybe in your case it's the left big toe...

Maybe in your case it's the left big toe...

Oooh, maybe....

But you'll have to give me a couple of minutes, stitching ribs back together isn't as easy as it sounds....

Hahaha. Gee-whiz, I had some effect on this discussion.

Please excuse the spam-esk comment. Please continue good sirs.

No, it means you're using the wrong organ - you don't use your eyes to see god, you use your heart.

Ever heard the tale of that emperor who got some new clothes only intelligent people could see?

Ever heard the tale of that emperor who got some new clothes only intelligent people could see?
Yes, I have. Your point...?

If your point is that those who don't "see" god are not intelligent, then I have to disagree entirely. Working in metaphor is a learned skill.

Yes, I have. Your point...?

If your point is that those who don't "see" god are not intelligent, then I have to disagree entirely. Working in metaphor is a learned skill.
I think he was going more for the comparison of the fact that essentially in the emperors new cloths supposedly only people with a fully developed sensory organ (brain) were supposedly able to see his cloths
Even though the close were not there some good coning and a person with a WANT to see it overwhelmed the logical fact that he indeed had no cloths



(I’m just working with what I got but I think that is what he was eluding to)

i believe in a higher being but religion itself is stupid because of the violence an corruption that follows it. I really don't care what religion, or non-religion, people follow. I believe in what I believe and nobody will ever change my mind.

Yes, I have. Your point...?

If your point is that those who don't "see" god are not intelligent, then I have to disagree entirely. Working in metaphor is a learned skill.

Well, it turned out he didn't, in fact, wear any clothes, and those who claimed to see them just didn't want to embarass themselves by indicating they were too dumb.

So perhaps this is similar?

Ah, don't worry about me, I'm just an agnostic, not an atheist. ;)

What's the point in free will to believe. It's free will to love that matters.

Matthew 16:18-19

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"

Jesus told Peter to bulid the catholic church, Peter became the first pope, the church had the keys to heaven and power to forgive sins.

lol... I had to laugh at the part that said "what's the point in free will to believe? it's free will to love that matters." hehe.

You personally have the free will to not believe in God. It's basically the same thing as having the free will to believe in God, or the same idea. It's having the free will to believe or disbelieve something. I'd think you'd be pissed if you didn't have the free will to believe or disbelieve... I thought you'd be trying to argue that you have the right to be atheist. Which you do. But what you said kind of goes against what you're trying to prove.

Anyone can believe whatever they want.

And Christ wasn't telling Peter to physically build the church; he told Peter that Peter was the rock upon which he would found his church. "Church" is a general term used for the "universal church", or basically all Christians. Peter was also not a pope. He was a roaming disciple/preacher/whatever you want to call him. Nowhere in the Bible is he called a pope. The section that speaks of the binding speaks of the binding of evil spirits/demons/whatever... and when it says things done by the church on earth are the things done in Heaven, it translates to mean that the decisions of the church (anyone grouped into the Christian catagory) are backed by Heaven. Nowhere in that verse, Matthew 16:18-19, states that the church has the power to forgive sins.

I think he was going more for the comparison of the fact that essentially in the emperors new cloths supposedly only people with a fully developed sensory organ (brain) were supposedly able to see his cloths
Even though the close were not there some good coning and a person with a WANT to see it overwhelmed the logical fact that he indeed had no cloths



(I’m just working with what I got but I think that is what he was eluding to)
Interesting how the story can be seen from different perspectives. I always thought it was the Emperor who was the fool. (i.e. the people didn't see what they wanted to see; rather, they said they saw, they said what they thought the Emperor wanted to hear.)

EDIT: Ah, you were referring to the Emperor himself. Got'cha.

I was referring to the very real ability of humans to utilize metaphor, that has nothing to do with fooling oneself, and everything to do with a proper use of the human faculty of delusion. The Emperor's delusion comes across as foolish and ridiculous simply because there is no value in it; there is nothing spiritual to be gained (and no, self-satisfaction doesn't count). Seeing with our hearts can often lead to foolishness, too, but that is of the kind people are usually very forgiving of.

No, I'm referring to stepping into a metaphor, in this case assuming the role of the supplicant to god. There's nothing foolish in it, except of course for those who find no value in spirituality.

I'll wade into this discussion, just some observations:

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance? What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?

The whole carrot that religion holds out is that if you control your behaviour (basically, make some sacrifices), you'll get a reward. But, there's no mechanism to measure that you're acting well, so it's important that your actions be motivated by something other than raw self-interest (otherwise you'd backslide when no one was looking). Rather than put God out there where it's obvious he/she is around, the religion wants you to act properly even without supervision. The ironic thing is that if we act according to the principles Jesus laid down, we also get a reward here on Earth, a much better society.



2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins? If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?

Pretty much only Roman Catholics believe only the Church can forgive sins. This was part of Martin Luther's issue when he split off to form the Protestants. Many peope (Martin Luther included), believe the restriction of forgiveness of sins to the Church was done to preserve the Roman Catholic church's power; if only the Church can forgive sins, then the only way to get into Heaven is to do what the Church says (no matter how asinine). Otherwise, if the Church makes an edict you don't like (i.e., no birth control), you just ignore it and negotiate directly with God. Personally, I think the Roman Catholic Church's history and current actions have destroyed any credibility they once had, so I think the "preservation of power" deal is what really happened.




3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. They used God[s] to explain fire, rain, love, human existance, etc. We have for some time been able to explain fire, rain and love(to an extent). Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?

These are two questions - a.) why is one religion "more correct" than another, and b.) why do we still use religion to explain how we got there?

a.) More Correct - This all depends on your view of religion. Religions are frequently (but not always) associated with a power hierarchy. And people of a type attracted to that hierarchy tend to be the type that want power - they want to be able to impose their will on others. This makes each hierarchy/religion very jealous and intolerant of the other. So, you get "my religion is better". Judeaism, Christianity and Islam are all basically the same ideas wrapped up in different power hierarchies. The differences between them pale in comparison to the similarities. A person who leads a "good" life in any one of the religions could also meet the requirements of living a "good" life in any of the others, except for belonging to the wrong hierarchy. This makes our current religious violence so particularly stupid because the hierarchies (the dogma that surropunds each religion) are the creation of MAN! There is NO WAY God's up there cheering on those people who slaughter the adherents of one of God's other hierarchies. It's the SAME GOD. No, the reason for these divisions is man's inherent greed and the attempt by some to control others. Every "religious" conflict is and was a naked, primal power struggle cloaked in the mantle of religion. It's about economics and who gets what, not about religion. We still haven't progressed past our primitive tribal roots. 10,000 years of civilization against 2.5 billion years of evolution, it's gonna take some time.


b.) Explaining how we got here - There will always be unanswered questions, because it's highly unlikely we will ever be able to go back and observe the beginning of the universe all over again. We may get some ideas of the mechanism, but science doesn't address the cause, just the effect. Likewise, we'll never be able to prove or disprove God or the existence of a "soul." It's metaphysical. On the flip side, blind obedience doesn't always work well either, and people can use ignorance in others to take advantage of them. Beware of people who try to dumb society down - it's usually because they want them to be sheep that they can then sheer. Kansas, get your act together.

I think he was going more for the comparison of the fact that essentially in the emperors new cloths supposedly only people with a fully developed sensory organ (brain) were supposedly able to see his cloths
Even though the close were not there some good coning and a person with a WANT to see it overwhelmed the logical fact that he indeed had no cloths



(I’m just working with what I got but I think that is what he was eluding to)

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
People are very good at fooling themselves into believing something they want to be true, for one reason or the other.

This may or may not be true for the current citizen of the methaphorical empire, but it's all too possible they learned the ruse trough their parents.

There are three main questions stopping me from converting to Chritsianity. If you do answer them, don't do it with 'God works in mysterious ways'.

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?
What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?
Hey, Christianity isn't the only religion out there, you know.

God has no wishes, except those we impart to him on his behalf.
God doesn't get anything out of our relationship with him. Having religion is not about god, it is about us; we are the ones who benefit from having a relationship with god.

God is not a conscious, wilful being living somewhere apart from us. God is a part of us; "he" (the entity) symbolises our relationship to him, like an "other half" spiritually speaking. We (each) exist, so god exists. Let me explain. We are human life-forms, conscious individuals each with our own perspective on the world. We see the world through our eyes and experience it through our senses. This is the subjective perspective, and with it we can understand each human consciousness as operating from an individual standpoint. ("Here's me. There's you.") Things that go on within each conscious mind are subjective to that individual (thoughts, feelings, concepts, etc.) and independent from other individuals. Since god is a part of us, conceptually speaking, god is subjective to and for each individual. We exist; so the only 'proof of god' we have is recognition of the relationship that we, each, individually, develop with him. Whether or not god has an existence apart from us becomes irrelevant when we realise that what empowers us is that relationship.

2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?
Christian questions. Don't know. Personally, I just don't sin. It's easier that way. ;)

3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Nothing.

Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. They used God[s] to explain fire, rain, love, human existance, etc. We have for some time been able to explain fire, rain and love(to an extent). Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?
Early religion is not an oversimplified explanation for how the world works, or a "primitive" version of science --if you rid yourself of that 19th Century opinion of mythology, you'll be better off. Early religion centered on the individual as the centre of the universe, and its tool, in some places, most notably those that dawned our Western civilization, was astrology. The subjective perspective is essential to practicing astrology, but perhaps that's a topic for another post. Suffice it to say that god's purpose today is not as an explanation for how we got here --he's done his job, we are already here, and so that "purpose" (creation) has been spent. His purpose is as a guide to direct our attention. In that sense, god is love.

<snip>

Christian questions. Don't know. Personally, I just don't sin. It's easier that way. ;)



Well i guess most people attempt that... it's the carrying out thats the tough bit... you managed that yet? ;)

Well i guess most people attempt that... it's the carrying out thats the tough bit... you managed that yet? ;)
Considering "sin" is a concept unique to the Abrahamic religions, it's not too hard. ;)

There are three main questions stopping me from converting to Chritsianity. If you do answer them, don't do it with 'God works in mysterious ways'.


But I've never done that before. It is a cop out. I've always wanted to do though. As long as you are listening and not just saying, " la lalala" instead.

1) Why does God not wish us to have proof of his existance?
What can he possibly get out of us believing in him that he can't get out of us being certain that he exists?

God has given 1 million proofs in the past. Every time people after a month or a year just plain forgot that they had proof. One might say he got bored of people neglecting him.
I mean think if you gave people proof multiple times and after a month people forgot that they saw the proof. Would you give it out 1000 more times, you might be more cynical of humanity.

Now God has still given us proof though. He just isn't sending every person a meeting with his own guardian angel because people are too forgetful or not worthy.
Miracles happen because of faith: not to cause it (though that is a nice side effect).

2) Why did Jesus give the church the power to forgive sins?
If I sin and repent, why do I need to have some priest tell me I'm forgiven? If I have repented I will be forgiven at the judgment. The church gathered a lot of power and money through their ability to forgive sins so why would Jesus give them that power if he knew damn well they would become corrupt?

Now you are asking the right questions.
The Catholic Church is the only church to allow you to buy sins to be forgiven (they stopped that practice though). It has been curropted over the years. Another fun fact, the Catholic church has no authority from heaven. Both sad and true. The authority of the apostleship wqasn't transfered from peter. It was still with john which was why he did revelations on that island.
If the Pope had the power he would have been used to give the text instead.

3) With the hundreds of religions we have, what makes Christianity any more correct than Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, etc?
Since the very beginning of communication the question has been raised, "How did we get here?". In a time of such primitive knowledge of the universe, the only option of explaination was the supernatural. They used God[s] to explain fire, rain, love, human existance, etc. We have for some time been able to explain fire, rain and love(to an extent). Just because the only question left is "How did we get here, which we can't currently answer, why do we still insist on using God to explain it?

All these religions have parts of the truth.
Hinduism takes away your freedom of choice by the caste system.
Buddha is contradictionary with atatman and no atman yet atman exist in the consciousness. Wha?
Islam was a very accurate religion yet got curropted by age.
Christianity has much truth in it.

The truest church is in my opinion the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. It has the most truth you'll ever find in a religion. And the finding out the most truth should be the goal of all partipant of a religion.

People use gods because as you said no one can explain love really. They can try but they will never fully understand it by themselves.

People use gods because as you said no one can explain love really. They can try but they will never fully understand it by themselves.

Love: and emotional adaptation to a physical neccessity. There ya go.

Love: and emotional adaptation to a physical neccessity. There ya go.

Why is it neccessary, did'nt explain that.

Not all humans love. Some just screw people. So explain why that is. And if it isn't a need than it isn't a neccesity.

Why is it neccessary, did'nt explain that.

Not all humans love. Some just screw people. So explain why that is. And if it isn't a need than it isn't a neccesity.

It isnt a neccessity anymore because a lot of people never settle down and have children. However when people stayed together for life, there needed to be a special bond between these people otherwise they might just split up and the children would suffer.

3. It's mainly a matter of choosing and gut feeling. However, of all the religions in existance, Christianity has the most documented evidence. (lots o' historical records from the era, plus many of the events/areas referenced in the Bible have been confirmed through archeology, the Shroud of Turin and other miracles, etc.) Sure, it's not rock hard evidence, but it's more than other religions.

There are many people who would disagree with you on this fact, and would go as far to say it has the least documented.

source:http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm (with included secondary sources)