NationStates Jolt Archive

And rather then continue on with the arguement you bring up the "libeals suck" card as usual

:rolleyes:


Not me! I have no feelings on way or the other about liberals. Its just what you do. It still doesn't answer my question how does it make me a racist.

Not me! I have no feelings on way or the other about liberals. Its just what you do. It still doesn't answer my question how does it make me a racist.
Who said I am liberal? who said the person you quoted was?

What makes YOUR god the right one?


Mainly because the bible says he is :D plus it is one of the few (if only) religious texts which corroborates with history (EXCLUDING GENESIS!!!! Sheesh). It also makes many prophecies which are fulfilled. I think someone did a calculation of the probability of having each prophecy fulfilled, which resulted in an astonishing...1 in a billion? I don't remember, but it was very high to say the least :)

Not me! I have no feelings on way or the other about liberals. Its just what you do. It still doesn't answer my question how does it make me a racist.


Germany is a nation, not a race, so it doesn't make you a racist....just horribly misinformed or a liar ;)

Neo's right. But now, people will say, bu twhat if the bible was written later, what if the bible's a piece of fiction, etc etc etc.

Who said I am liberal? who said the person you quoted was?


ok wrong word... shall i say those who believe that the world is a great big multicutural melting pot where we can all live together in harmony and light under a caring all mighty who will treat us to milk and honey (i suspect that someone will object to those ingredients being a little too white lol)

Mainly because the bible says he is :D plus it is one of the few (if only) religious texts which corroborates with history (EXCLUDING GENESIS!!!! Sheesh). It also makes many prophecies which are fulfilled. I think someone did a calculation of the probability of having each prophecy fulfilled, which resulted in an astonishing...1 in a billion? I don't remember, but it was very high to say the least :)

It correlates to the history of the Middle East, yes. So does the Mahabarata for India....

Germany is a nation, not a race, so it doesn't make you a racist....just horribly misinformed or a liar ;)

What do you mean. All i asked was how it felt to have a nazi for a pope. He is a pope and he was a nazi so i fail to understand your point.

Mainly because the bible says he is :D plus it is one of the few (if only) religious texts which corroborates with history (EXCLUDING GENESIS!!!! Sheesh). It also makes many prophecies which are fulfilled. I think someone did a calculation of the probability of having each prophecy fulfilled, which resulted in an astonishing...1 in a billion? I don't remember, but it was very high to say the least :)

I've never even heard of that and it doesnt sound very likely, can you give me a link?

Mainly because the bible says he is :D plus it is one of the few (if only) religious texts which corroborates with history (EXCLUDING GENESIS!!!! Sheesh). It also makes many prophecies which are fulfilled. I think someone did a calculation of the probability of having each prophecy fulfilled, which resulted in an astonishing...1 in a billion? I don't remember, but it was very high to say the least :)
How about the koran? that one follows (in the older part) history just as well and in the newer part follows it better (mohamad has a LOT of proof of existance based in history)
So why not change to that religion because it really does have as much if not more historical proof

Black Adder, just like Nowoland. You are acting like because i haven't had biology My opinion doesn't matter. Like I can't be right. And simply based on the fact that I haven't had biology, you are stating Christianity is wrong.
Hi Kvearen, sorry about the pre-school quip, but I had biology right from the start in school. The mind boogles that a 14 year old hasn't had biology yet.

However, I don't say that christianity is wrong. I myself am a catholic and believe in God. I do not need proof. If I had proof I would have knowledge and no need of faith.

Also, there are a lot of things I don't belive in and one of them is original sin. That poor little girl didn't die because of anything she or her ancestors did. She died untouched of any sin. Is that any consolation for her parents? I don't think so, I really feel for them. Losing a child is the hardest and worst thing that can happen to a parent. I guess even if you have faith, this faith will be severely tested.

So why doesn't God intervene? I have no answer, but than I don't really believe in an intervening God. We are left to our own devices and our status in life, health, wealth and other stuff is no indication if God loves us or not. Bad stuff happens. I do believe that we are meant to lead our lives as positively as is possible and on that we will later be judged. I also believe that it is mightily more important how we conduct our lives than what we believe in.

That means I expect to see the beneficiary agnostic who helped the poor in heaven (if I get there ;) ) but not the TV preacher who strongly believed but led people to maim or kill others who didn't share his believe, i.e. abortion doctors.

That means I expect to see the beneficiary agnostic who helped the poor in heaven (if I get there ;) ) but not the TV preacher who strongly believed but led people to maim or kill others who didn't share his believe, i.e. abortion doctors.

Oh shit! He said abortion! If anybody even starts to discuss abortion I will kill... :headbang:

Mainly because the bible says he is :D plus it is one of the few (if only) religious texts which corroborates with history (EXCLUDING GENESIS!!!! Sheesh). It also makes many prophecies which are fulfilled. I think someone did a calculation of the probability of having each prophecy fulfilled, which resulted in an astonishing...1 in a billion? I don't remember, but it was very high to say the least :)
Half of Genesis (all of it from what I believe, but that's not the point) does correspond with history when it comes to Abraham and the stories after that. Jericho is one of the first major cities to be established (12000ish years ago).

What do you mean. All i asked was how it felt to have a nazi for a pope. He is a pope and he was a nazi so i fail to understand your point.
Even if he had been a Nazi (and membership of the hitler youth does not actually make you one automatically), it is obvious that he is not a Nazi now or has been for the last 6 decades.

Shees what a kindergarden this is!

However, I don't say that christianity is wrong. I myself am a catholic and believe in God. I do not need proof. If I had proof I would have knowledge and no need of faith.


I'd like to emphasized this. Just because some of us here are attacking the position that Christianity is "correct" does not make us atheists. I am a practicing Roman Catholic myself. I am just wise enough to realize that my religion is predicated on an awful lot of conjecture and cannot be proven in any concrete sense. Try not to get hung up in proving your religion because you'll never be able to. Religion requires a lot of faith, and faith is something that can never be quantified. You either have it or you don't.

Oh shit! He said abortion! If anybody even starts to discuss abortion I will kill... :headbang:
He was trying to make clear how un just salvation by faith alone seems unjust to us compared to salvaton by works

Oh shit! He said abortion! If anybody even starts to discuss abortion I will kill... :headbang:
Sorry, poor choice, didn't want to further inflame the discussion. Just couldn't think of something off hand that some of the strong in faith did that is definitively wrong (i.e. incite others to maim or kill others!)

Can you forgive me :fluffle: ?

Here's a stupid question...noting personal, REALLY!
QUESTION: Do any of you ppl, whether on nationstates or elsewhere, know what truth is? Deep down inside, can you figure out what' your sole purpose here is on this planet Earth? If so, cool. If not, I neither any other being can tell you. IF YOU WANT, you can search for it.

We can argue abotrion if you want :P. i had to do a school project or 2 on that.

He was trying to make clear how un just salvation by faith alone seems unjust to us compared to salvaton by works

I understand that. I just was making sure nobody got any fancy Ideas...

Try not to get hung up in proving your religion because you'll never be able to. Religion requires a lot of faith, and faith is something that can never be quantified. You either have it or you don't.

Amen to that
Thank you!

Sorry, poor choice, didn't want to further inflame the discussion. Just couldn't think of something off hand that some of the strong in faith did, what is definitively wrong (i.e. incite others to maim or kill others!

Can you forgive me :fluffle: ?

lol yes

I'd like to emphasized this. Just because some of us here are attacking the position that Christianity is "correct" does not make us atheists. I am a practicing Roman Catholic myself. I am just wise enough to realize that my religion is predicated on an awful lot of conjecture and cannot be proven in any concrete sense. Try not to get hung up in proving your religion because you'll never be able to. Religion requires a lot of faith, and faith is something that can never be quantified. You either have it or you don't.
Exactly

And I completely agree about the “have faith or don’t”
I can not FORCE myself to believe in something just to avoid going to hell … its just not possible. I can go through the motions but deep inside I will not truly believe.

I hope an all loving god will realize that and I am sure if he exists he will

I understand that. I just was making sure nobody got any fancy Ideas...
Lol well I will make sure its not me that starts arguing it lol

Here's a stupid question...noting personal, REALLY!
QUESTION: Do any of you ppl, whether on nationstates or elsewhere, know what truth is? Deep down inside, can you figure out what' your sole purpose here is on this planet Earth? If so, cool. If not, I neither any other being can tell you. IF YOU WANT, you can search for it.

Your right. That was a stupid question.

We can argue abotrion if you want :P. i had to do a school project or 2 on that.

I dont want to argues or debate, but I am very interested in these "school projects" you speak of.


BTW this marks the 6th hour of me posting in this thread. :) I seriously have been doing nothing else. I want 6 hours of my life back...

I dont want to argues or debate, but I am very interested in these "school projects" you speak of.

...powerpoint presentations.

...powerpoint presentations.

Wow....Descriptive.

I've never even heard of that and it doesnt sound very likely, can you give me a link?


I think I read it in a pamphlet or magazine or book.....I'll try to find it on the web for you, though.

Wow....Descriptive.

I thought so too.

Even if he had been a Nazi (and membership of the hitler youth does not actually make you one automatically), it is obvious that he is not a Nazi now or has been for the last 6 decades.

Shees what a kindergarden this is!

How is it obvious. Wish i had your insight or is it naivety. He could be or maybe not. I don't really care. I was just asking a question for chrisakes well actually not for chrisakes as he never existed anyway thats another arguement

Do you go to a religious school?

Do you go to a religious school?

Me? noooo... I go to a really crappy public school

:sniper:

:sniper:

eh?

You heard me!

Me? noooo... I go to a really crappy public school

....public as in private? or public as in free?

How about the koran? that one follows (in the older part) history just as well and in the newer part follows it better (mohamad has a LOT of proof of existance based in history)
So why not change to that religion because it really does have as much if not more historical proof




Revelation 22:19 (NKJV) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[a] his part from the Book[b] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



Galatians 1:8 (NKJV) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Glorious Sleep!

How is it obvious. Wish i had your insight or is it naivety. He could be or maybe not. I don't really care. I was just asking a question for chrisakes well actually not for chrisakes as he never existed anyway thats another arguement


He has renounced it many many many many many many many many (I think you get the message) times over the years. This man is NOT a nazi.

....public as in private? or public as in free?


Wouldn't public imply public and private imply private?

....public as in private? or public as in free?

public as in free..... How the heck could public mean private? Their opposites!

Public Private school wins the oxymoron of the year award!

public as in free..... How the heck could public mean private? Their opposites!

Public Private school wins the oxymoron of the year award!


Not in my country. there are two kinds of school

Public: for the rich...bording school etc
State: for the rest...not much etc

Not in my country. there are two kinds of school

Public: for the rich...bording school etc
State: for the rest...not much etc


What country is this...? Oh wait, it says on the little bar on the left doesnt it...

Revelation 22:19 (NKJV) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[a] his part from the Book[b] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



Galatians 1:8 (NKJV) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

*lol
If I remember correctly, te Qu'raan says some pretty similar stuff about the bible. Doesn't make either of them more true than the other....

How is it obvious. Wish i had your insight or is it naivety. He could be or maybe not. I don't really care. I was just asking a question for chrisakes well actually not for chrisakes as he never existed anyway thats another arguement

How is it obvious? Well if you have a look at his live, perhaps read a few of his books and have a look at the kind of church policy he inplements/ed it would become obvious to you that there is absolutely no overlap with the doctrine of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

You stated that he's a nazi in your question and you are wrong.

I am quite opposed to the former Cardinal Ratzinger but that is based on his views on catholic doctrine not an some babble I read on the internet about the alleged nazi past of the pope!

Revelation 22:19 (NKJV) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[a] his part from the Book[b] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



Galatians 1:8 (NKJV) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.


I just noticed this... Go Neo!

He has renounced it many many many many many many many many (I think you get the message) times over the years. This man is NOT a nazi.

As i said i don't care if he is or isn't but how does me posing my original question make me a racist?

Wouldn't public imply public and private imply private?
In Britain public schools are private :)

Revelation 22:19 (NKJV) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[a] his part from the Book[b] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



Galatians 1:8 (NKJV) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
Thats fine your faith tells you not to and that it cant be true but thats fine. what point did your claim that the historical accuracy helped convince you then as there are much more historicaly acurate books?
Nothing i guess you just felt like saying it?
(and some humor)
ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY
(1) The Bible is true.
(2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL HISTORY
(1) Many modern historians think that there probably was somebody named Jesus, maybe.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

:p

*lol
If I remember correctly, te Qu'raan says some pretty similar stuff about the bible. Doesn't make either of them more true than the other....

Well, Which was written first?

How does that make me a racist, i was just posing a question. Like most "liberals" you stifle debate by bringing up the racist card as usual.

Seriously, I laughed when I read this. You are the first person I've called rascist who wasn't Chris Rock- congratulations.

Now I take some offense here. How again am I a liberal?

You were posing an offensive question that could be taken as saying that Germans are Nazis.

What country is this...? Oh wait, it says on the little bar on the left doesnt it...

No offense, but.... what kind of school do you go to?
I learned about the English and American school system when I was ten, and I'm not even from an English-speaking country :confused:

Well, Which was written first?

the qu'raan by a good 1000 years i think..i could however be thinking of another book entirely

Well, Which was written first?
The jewish torah ... does that make it more correct then the bible ?

Well, Which was written first?

Ah, so the first one is always right? Good argument to converse to Taoism.

No offense, but.... what kind of school do you go to?
I learned about the English and American school system when I was ten, and I'm not even from an English-speaking country :confused:

Ey? I live in America.. ar eyou adressing.. err.. the other guy? Black adder I think it was?

the qu'raan by a good 1000 years i think..i could however be thinking of another book entirely

Naw, you're wrong there. The Qu'raan was written in the 6th century AD

Naw, you're wrong there. The Qu'raan was written in the 6th century AD

I thought it was later...

Ah, so the first one is always right? Good argument to converse to Taoism.

Why?

Ah, so the first one is always right? Good argument to converse to Taoism.
Or the Jewish faith ...

The jewish torah ... does that make it more correct then the bible ?

Well, where do they disagree? And wait.. I thought the torah was like the old testament or something.. Or is that something else?

Ey? I live in America.. ar eyou adressing.. err.. the other guy? Black adder I think it was?

Well, I was just wondering why you didn't know about other countries' school systems. Seemed a bit odd to me. As I said, we were taught about that in 5th grade (age 10).
And I'm sure Mr Blackadder knows about the American school system.

Well, where do they disagree? And wait.. I thought the torah was like the old testament or something.. Or is that something else?

It contains the old testament, but it also contains book the bible left out.

Why?

Because it's a good 5000 years older than both the bible and the Qu'raan...

So, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, church of Lemon Meringue....
I'm not asking if god exists or not. Let's start this considering he/she/it does or they do. But what makes you so sure that your path is the right one, that you feel you are in a position to converse others?
All religions are basically the same thing: a consciousness putting itself in a relationship with its concept of god. No one religion is better than another, no one way of practicing, or one mythology, is better than another.

For some Christians, there is an exception that will always put them at odds with the basic religion template, and that's "salvation". If the concept of salvation is understood as for "those who believe in (god/Christ/themselves)", as I believe it properly should, then it fits in nicely with the basic religion template of a relationship with god, and other religions can be acknolwedged and respected from a distance. However, there are people who take the words in the Bible literally. For these people, salvation is "only for those who believe in Christ" (..from somewhere in the Bible). In this instance, for these people, Christianity becomes eclectic, an exclusive club, and in order "save" others they must be brought into that club. 'Tis a shame, but it happens, and all because of a core misunderstanding (taking the Bible too literally).

Seriously, I laughed when I read this. You are the first person I've called rascist who wasn't Chris Rock- congratulations.

Now I take some offense here. How again am I a liberal?

You were posing an offensive question that could be taken as saying that Germans are Nazis.

It was just a question..... if anyone wishes to interpret the question as suggesting germans are nazis then thats there problem A misunderstanding on their part does not make me a racist or anything else for that matter.

Well, I was just wondering why you didn't know about other countries' school systems. Seemed a bit odd to me. As I said, we were taught about that in 5th grade (age 10).
And I'm sure Mr Blackadder knows about the American school system.

Err Mr BlackAdder had to ask lol...

And of course not, Cmon, you expect America to teach us abotu other countries? Your crazy, you see, America is naturally superiour to every other country

Naw, you're wrong there. The Qu'raan was written in the 6th century AD

...thanks....what am i thinking of?....a holy book...100bc?

Well, where do they disagree? And wait.. I thought the torah was like the old testament or something.. Or is that something else?
Very simmilar ... the NT extends the OT just like The quran extends the NT

The situation is suprizingly simmilar

And they dont disagree because it is really the OT the problem is there is none of christs changing of the rules ... the NT changes some of the rule so the faith is really a compleatly different beast

It contains the old testament, but it also contains book the bible left out.

And what do these books talk of?

...thanks....what am i thinking of?....a holy book...100bc?

The Torah? Jewish holy book?

The Torah? Jewish holy book?


...Could have been...

All religions are basically the same thing: a consciousness putting itself in a relationship with its concept of god. No one religion is better than another, no one way of practicing, or one mythology, is better than another.

For some Christians, there is an exception that will always put them at odds with the basic religion template, and that's "salvation". If the concept of salvation is understood as for "those who believe in (god/Christ/themselves)", as I believe it properly should, then it fits in nicely with the basic religion template of a relationship with god, and other religions can be acknolwedged and respected from a distance. However, there are people who take the words in the Bible literally. For these people, salvation is "only for those who believe in Christ" (..from somewhere in the Bible). In this instance, for these people, Christianity becomes eclectic, an exclusive club, and in order "save" others they must be brought into that club. 'Tis a shame, but it happens, and all because of a core misunderstanding (taking the Bible too literally).

I disagree. Why isn't the bible to be taken literally? Is it just tips, to look at when you're stuck? It shouldn't be. It should be a guide to everything in your life. It should be taken literally. And "these people" are most of the christian faith.

All religions are basically the same thing: a consciousness putting itself in a relationship with its concept of god. No one religion is better than another, no one way of practicing, or one mythology, is better than another.

For some Christians, there is an exception that will always put them at odds with the basic religion template, and that's "salvation". If the concept of salvation is understood as for "those who believe in (god/Christ/themselves)", as I believe it properly should, then it fits in nicely with the basic religion template of a relationship with god, and other religions can be acknolwedged and respected from a distance. However, there are people who take the words in the Bible literally. For these people, salvation is "only for those who believe in Christ" (..from somewhere in the Bible). In this instance, for these people, Christianity becomes eclectic, an exclusive club, and in order "save" others they must be brought into that club. 'Tis a shame, but it happens, and all because of a core misunderstanding (taking the Bible too literally).
You hit it right on the head …though it makes sense if you think about it … by making it an exclusive club they can never be truly complacent with allowing others to “live and let live” in their own faith

In the end it generates a very strong motivation to make their group “grow” in numbers (if you think of organized religion as an evolutionary beneficial trait the ability to make your exclusive club bigger has great advantages for survival) other viewpoints could mean more groups to contend with

I guess I'm joining this discussion a little late, but oh well. I don't think it matters what was written first, since you can't actually prove that any are true. They may be historically accurate, but that's no reason to live your life off of what they say.

And what do these books talk of?

You got me there, I never read it as a whole. From what I understand, they report some Jewish ledgends that weren't included in the bible, and they form the basis of the Jewish Kabbalah (mysticism based on numbers and their spiritual meaning)

I guess I'm joining this discussion a little late, but oh well. I don't think it matters what was written first, since you can't actually prove that any are true. They may be historically accurate, but that's no reason to live your life off of what they say.

The discussion picked up about 17 pages ago, if you wanna go back and read it all you can :P

EDIT: Then, what do you belive?

You got me there, I never read it as a whole. From what I understand, they report some Jewish ledgends that weren't included in the bible, and they form the basis of the Jewish Kabbalah (mysticism based on numbers and their spiritual meaning)

What is the difference between Torah and Tanach?


The word Bible (from the Greek, Biblia) means The Book (or books!). Actually, as we will see in topic D, the Bible is actually a library of books. Surprisingly, there is no word for 'Bible' as such in Hebrew! The word Tanach is actually an acronym, (like SCUBA, (who knows what SCUBA stands for?) or RADAR), that stands for Torah, Nevi'im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). After the Torah reading, a small portion from 'Nevi'im' is read, called the Haftarah. Unlike the Torah portions that are read sequentially, the Haftarah is a passage chosen by the Rabbis (of the Talmud) that in some way relates to the Torah reading.

There is a word, Mikra, (from Reading) that would be like the English word: Scripture (from Writing), that has the sense of 'Holy Writ.'

So, to summarize: All of the Torah is in the Tanach (or Bible) but not all of the Tanach is in the Torah. To give some examples: The books of Isaiah, Psalms or Esther are in the Bible, but not in the Torah!


Otherway around the torah leaves out Isaiah Psalms and Esther

I disagree. Why isn't the bible to be taken literally? Is it just tips, to look at when you're stuck? It shouldn't be. It should be a guide to everything in your life. It should be taken literally. And "these people" are most of the christian faith.
No, it is much more than that! It is a guide on how to build a very special personal relationship with god. It is kind of an outdated book, but that makes it all the more precious (said as a lover of antiques) and read correctly, it is as useful in its way as other religious texts.

The discussion picked up about 17 pages ago, if you wanna go back and read it all you can :P

EDIT: Then, what do you belive?


I don't believe at all I'm afraid. But i have a get out clause. If God does exist he'll be English

The discussion picked up about 17 pages ago, if you wanna go back and read it all you can :P

EDIT: Then, what do you belive?

I'm thinking he's on the side of, "no religion is good"

I disagree. Why isn't the bible to be taken literally? Is it just tips, to look at when you're stuck? It shouldn't be. It should be a guide to everything in your life. It should be taken literally. And "these people" are most of the christian faith.

So, you would wear tassles on your clothes, never wear wollen and linen clothes together, never eat shellfish, refuse vital blood transfusions and genrally live your life after every single rule given in Deutronomy?

Originally Posted by Kvearen
And "these people" [who take things literally] are most of the christian faith.
We should have a poll to test this assumption based on our General forum sampling of humanity.

I disagree. Why isn't the bible to be taken literally?

Because you have a real problem then. You can prove a lot of mutually exclusive viewpoints by quoting from the bible. I once watched a quotefest between a friend of mine (protestant minister) and someone from a evangelical sect. They kept quoting contradictory stuff (ahh, but doesn't ... say ...) for hours. Great entertainment.

Also the new testament is really the base of believe for christians (or should be). So why do so many über-christians keep quoting mostly from the old testament?

And "these people" are most of the christian faith.
I would disagree here. The RC church (which I think contains about 1/4 to 1/3 of all christians) does not teach that the bible is always to be taken literary. That is why (now) the RC have less problems with all this nasty evolution business ;)

I don't believe at all I'm afraid. But i have a get out clause. If God does exist he'll be English


More precisly he would have an Oxford education and born in stamford..

So, you would wear tassles on your clothes, never wear wollen and linen clothes together, never eat shellfish, refuse vital blood transfusions and genrally live your life after every single rule given in Deutronomy?

Of course :p

Shellfish can mess with your stomach, blood transfusions can have HIV, West Nile, or a host of other dangers, wollen and linen toghether is sooo yesterday ;) and tassles NEVER go out of style :D

My first ever attempt at a joke :D


But on a serious note, I think that the Bible should be followed, but not to a super fanatic level.

More precisly he would have an Oxford education and born in stamford..

Personally i think Souf ov watford.

So, you would wear tassles on your clothes, never wear wollen and linen clothes together, never eat shellfish, refuse vital blood transfusions and genrally live your life after every single rule given in Deutronomy?
Psst at heast the cloths and shellfish and such is in Levidicus

So, you would wear tassles on your clothes, never wear wollen and linen clothes together, never eat shellfish, [...] and genrally live your life after every single rule given in Deutronomy?

If he did that he'd be an orthodox jew ;)

refuse vital blood transfusions
Don't know the view of orthodox jews on that one, but Jehovas witnesses are against it.

Again stressing my point on that I find it strange so many fundamentalists live mostly by the OT

The discussion picked up about 17 pages ago, if you wanna go back and read it all you can :P

EDIT: Then, what do you belive?

I did read it all before I posted. And you ask what I believe? I believe in myself. I believe that you can't trust everything that's written on a scroll.

Back to the original question, why do I know my beliefs are right? I don't. I just don't think there aren't enough facts to validate religion. I don't want to live my life dedicated to God in hopes that I'll go to heaven, only to die and remain in the ground.

Personally i think Souf ov watford.

...or a midlands man

So, you would wear tassles on your clothes, never wear wollen and linen clothes together, never eat shellfish, refuse vital blood transfusions and genrally live your life after every single rule given in Deutronomy?

Is deut OT or NT? I don't have the books memorized....

I'm gonna start like a little seperate argument here. All you atheists and such. What do you have faith in?

I'm gonna start like a little seperate argument here. All you atheists and such. What do you have faith in?

...myself and the determination to live a good life, helping others whare possible

<snip> But what makes you so sure that your path is the right one, that you feel you are in a position to converse others?
I don't.

I never will.

An "afterlife" (the supposed "true" purpose of religious doctrine) is not up to me/humans, it's up to God/the Force/Whatever, and I'm not hubristic enough to think I can speak/write/recite for God.

I'm gonna start like a little seperate argument here. All you atheists and such. What do you have faith in?
Depends on if they are soft or hard atheist (hard sometimes reffered in antitheism)

Soft ... is kind of a "no bleief" in a deity so they fall in a no untill proven otherwise position

Hard or antitheism is an active belief that there IS for sure no god

I'm gonna start like a little seperate argument here. All you atheists and such. What do you have faith in?

I don't have faith in anything, since faith is belief without proof. I'd like to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is real before I devote myself to him, and since it's not proven, I don't believe it.

Is deut OT or NT? I don't have the books memorized....

Oh dear, you should really know that as a christian. :headbang:
NT:
Gospels, Epistels, Revelation

Everything else: OT

I'm gonna start like a little seperate argument here. All you atheists and such. What do you have faith in?

First you might want to choose what you mean by faith.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

You may mean number 1, most atheists would consider faith to be number 2. In which case atheists would not have faith in anything, they would only beilieve in thigns they considered has logical proof or material evidence.

I don't have faith in anything, since faith is belief without proof. I'd like to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is real before I devote myself to him, and since it's not proven, I don't believe it.
Ummm, all Science is based upon is the lack of failure, not the presence of proof. True, never having a failure is almost as good as proof, but it is not proof.

Thus we have Theories and Disproven Therories, but not Proven Theories.

Oh dear, you should really know that as a christian. :headbang: NT: Gospels, Epistels, Revelation Everything else: OT
Except the Apocrypha... :rolleyes:

Ummm, all Science is based upon is the lack of failure, not the presence of proof. True, never having a failure is almost as good as proof, but it is not proof.

Thus we have Theories and Disproven Therories, but not Proven Theories.

That's a good way to put it. It's like an argument I was trying to remember... Because everyone holds things to a higher standard to see if they're true, right? Well, what's the highest standard then?

EDIT: To christians, and other people believing in a religion, it'd be their bible, Qu'raan, whatever, or their god or gods, what is it for athiests?

Except the Apocrypha... :rolleyes:
Granted ;)

EDIT: To christians, and other people believing in a religion, it'd be their bible, Qu'raan, whatever, or their god or gods, what is it for athiests?

The neverending void of the grave if I can remember back a few years

Ummm, all Science is based upon is the lack of failure, not the presence of proof. True, never having a failure is almost as good as proof, but it is not proof.

Thus we have Theories and Disproven Therories, but not Proven Theories.

You're right. But there's not really a way to test for the existence of God. Maybe if I had a personal experience with God that would be proof enough for me, but I haven't. I just don't like the idea of putting all my chips on the existence of God. For all I know Zeus could be real.

The neverending void of the grave if I can remember back a few years

i don't think you got my question. To see whether or not you believe something is true, you check it against...?

EDIT: To christians, and other people believing in a religion, it'd be their bible, Qu'raan, whatever, or their god or gods, what is it for athiests?

Logic, scientific method, what one can "prove to themselves".

Logic, scientific method, what one can "prove to themselves".

yes, but how do you know logic works? What do you hold that to? There has to be a higher standard.

yes, but how do you know logic works? What do you hold that to? There has to be a higher standard.

It's only logical that logic works.

yes, but how do you know logic works? What do you hold that to? There has to be a higher standard.
We know logic works because of consistancy of outcomes when applying it (well we can be resonably sure)

It's only logical that logic works.

Yes, but circular reasoning doesnt count :P

If I remember correctly, te Qu'raan says some pretty similar stuff about the bible. Doesn't make either of them more true than the other....


The epistle to the Galatians and the John's Revelation were written long before the Qu'ran though. Therefore, Muhammad is to be accursed for spreading false doctrine :D

The epistle to the Galatians and the John's Revelation were written long before the Qu'ran though. Therefore, Muhammad is to be accursed for spreading false doctrine :D
Great how they took the jewish torah ... extended on it ... and then go "ok if anyone else does what we did they are heritics"
:rolleyes:

i don't think you got my question. To see whether or not you believe something is true, you check it against...?

Oh... my bad :headbang:
I used to just check it against my brain. If I couldn't fathom it, it didn't exist.

Until I became a firefighter awhile ago that is.

I think I'll throw my two cents in.

There is no truth par se. We don't know anything. We can't even be sure that what we're seeing, hearing, touching, etc, is 100% true. So there's absolutely no way we can know whether or not a god exists, or that, say, life as we know it is a product of evolution.

This lack of an absolute truth used to drive me crazy. I nearly went completely out of my head at the concept when I was 15 or 16. But then I realized that not only do we not know anything, we'll never know anything. So it's my philosophy to believe (because I'll never know) what has the most evidence going for it. My faith (if I can call it that) is based totally on reason.

For religion, I don't see enough evidence or reasoning to suggest that what any of the Bibles say are true. The Christian bible, for example, was translated first from Hebrew to Latin, then from Latin to English (and you lose an entire degree of meaning every time you translate something), and besides that, when translating the translators could choose whatever word they wanted for something ambiguous to give the desired effect. So even if the Bible is the word of God, it's so watered down now that I (personally... I wouldn't expect or want anyone to agree with me on this) see no reason to believe what it says.

I don't believe everything science says, either. I read a book called Darwin's Black Box which points out numerous biochemical flaws in the theory of evolution. Now, I think the reasoning behind evolution is sound, and I believe that evolution is on the right track, but it's not wholly explanitory to me.

What makes the most sense to me is that there is a higher power of some kind (given the complexities of the world and universe as I perceive it, and how all things interlock in an uncanny way to work out), and that, while he created everything, he plays no role whatsoever in our lives.

And... I realize that probably didn't add anything to the argument, or solve anything, and it's rather long winded... so, take it or leave it at your discretion. And if someone wants to point out any flaws in my philosophy, I'd be glad to reconsider them. ;)

Many modern historians think that there probably was somebody named Jesus, maybe.


1. Jesus was well-documented, just ask Mr. Josephus :)
2. It's not a maybe, there were many-a-Jesus, why, when the Jews demanded Jesus be crucified, Pilate thought they surely must have meant Jesus-bar-Jonah who was a well known thief and murderer.

1. Jesus was well-documented, just ask Mr. Josephus :)
2. It's not a maybe, there were many-a-Jesus, why, when the Jews demanded Jesus be crucified, Pilate thought they surely must have meant Jesus-bar-Jonah who was a well known thief and murderer.
And thats exactly why I said (a bit of humor) before posting that

Ah, but did it say that any message conflicting it, be it brought by man or angel, would bring a curse upon it's deliverer? And did it have miracles and prophecies which were always fulfilled accompanying it? Taoism is more of a philosophy than a relgion IMO (a little of both actually, but more philosophy).

Ah, but did it say that any message conflicting it, be it brought by man or angel, would bring a curse upon it's deliverer? And did it have miracles and prophecies which were always fulfilled accompanying it? Taoism is more of a philosophy than a relgion IMO (a little of both actually, but more philosophy).
I am sure they could have wrote them in there if they wanted ... and the prophacies were fufilled within the book in which they were proclaimed and recorded that seems horribly suspect to me
(that or they were in general enough nature that it was bound to happen sometime)

Naw, you're wrong there. The Qu'raan was written in the 6th century AD

Actually, the first full text of the Qu'ran was from the 9th century. The 6th century predates Muhammad, which would make writing it a little difficult hehe ;)

That's a good way to put it. It's like an argument I was trying to remember... Because everyone holds things to a higher standard to see if they're true, right? Well, what's the highest standard then?

EDIT: To christians, and other people believing in a religion, it'd be their bible, Qu'raan, whatever, or their god or gods, what is it for athiests?
I'd have to say "Reason", but even there we Deists (who believe in "God" as the concrete, unknowable universal creator - and that's all... you can call him Zeus if you want to...) hold Reason to be the defining feature "proving" the existence of "God".

The logic is somewhat circular, but:

The ability to Reason does not appear to be an evolutionary requirement.

Evolution tends to discard the unrequired and favor the required.

We know that life exists/can exist without the capacity for Reason (logical cognition/contemplation), thus Reason is not Required

Yet Reason exists in sophonts like humans and only in sophonts like humans (on Earth).

Therefore, reason was not evolved, but Created - which implies a Creator (nothing more).

Therefore, "God"

I admit there are some difficulties with this equasion, but I find it better than the questions created by insisting on no creator whatsoever.

Your milage may vary. :D

yes, but how do you know logic works? What do you hold that to? There has to be a higher standard.

Arguably, one would be more justified in asking how do we know scripture works. What should scripture be held against?

Logic works because the universe around us has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be operating within the confines of logic. Scripture is probablly significantly less reliable, since, even if it was originally inspired by a divinity, much of it has been so heavily edited over the years that the original meaning has been lost.

I'd have to say "Reason", but even there we Deists (who believe in "God" as the concrete, unknowable universal creator - and that's all... you can call him Zeus if you want to...) hold Reason to be the defining feature "proving" the existence of "God".

I thought I was the only deist here.

*high fives*

As for Christianity, there can only be one true church. The very Bible says so.

But there are really only two choices.
Either the Catholic church is correct or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints (Mormons) is correct. According to Biblical logic.

Reasons why:
All the protestant churches came out of the Catholic church, SO, if Catholics are right, then they are wrong, because they broke away. But likewise, If the CAtholics are wrong, then the Protestants are wrong too, having not started out from the truth. They claim unbroken authority from Peter.

The Mormon church claims to be the restored church of Christ. They claim there was an apostacy and that the authority and church of God was lost from the earth, (as seen in the writings of Paul). They claim Christ himself organized it with a prophet and apostles like unto the ancient church.

There have been small splinter groups off this, so the same applies to them as does to protestants.

Christ can only have one church. Because he would not want to confuse people.

Therefore, either there was a continuity of Authority from Christ down to the present day pope. OR the truth and authority was lost after the apostles died and there was a need for a Restoration of Christ's church (as is explained in Acts 2).

A reformation, no matter how profound, cannot restore that which was lost, nor can it fix something that is perfect.

I do not mean to offend, just to shed light on the possibilities of Christianity.

I'd have to say "Reason", but even there we Deists (who believe in "God" as the concrete, unknowable universal creator - and that's all... you can call him Zeus if you want to...) hold Reason to be the defining feature "proving" the existence of "God".

The logic is somewhat circular, but:

The ability to Reason does not appear to be an evolutionary requirement.

Evolution tends to discard the unrequired and favor the required.

We know that life exists/can exist without the capacity for Reason (logical cognition/contemplation), thus Reason is not Required

Yet Reason exists in sophonts like humans and only in sophonts like humans (on Earth).

Therefore, reason was not evolved, but Created - which implies a Creator (nothing more).

Therefore, "God"

I admit there are some difficulties with this equasion, but I find it better than the questions created by insisting on no creator whatsoever.

Your milage may vary. :D


Nice... well, there's a reason for a god to exist, atleast it' off athiesm...

Arguably, one would be more justified in asking how do we know scripture works. What should scripture be held against?

Logic works because the universe around us has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be operating within the confines of logic. Scripture is probablly significantly less reliable, since, even if it was originally inspired by a divinity, much of it has been so heavily edited over the years that the original meaning has been lost.

So you have faith in logic, we have faith in scripture (well, logic too, for most of us)

As for Christianity, there can only be one true church. The very Bible says so.

But there are really only two choices.
Either the Catholic church is correct or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints (Mormons) is correct. According to Biblical logic.

Reasons why:
All the protestant churches came out of the Catholic church, SO, if Catholics are right, then they are wrong, because they broke away. But likewise, If the CAtholics are wrong, then the Protestants are wrong too, having not started out from the truth. They claim unbroken authority from Peter.

The Mormon church claims to be the restored church of Christ. They claim there was an apostacy and that the authority and church of God was lost from the earth, (as seen in the writings of Paul). They claim Christ himself organized it with a prophet and apostles like unto the ancient church.

There have been small splinter groups off this, so the same applies to them as does to protestants.

Christ can only have one church. Because he would not want to confuse people.

Therefore, either there was a continuity of Authority from Christ down to the present day pope. OR the truth and authority was lost after the apostles died and there was a need for a Restoration of Christ's church (as is explained in Acts 2).

A reformation, no matter how profound, cannot restore that which was lost, nor can it fix something that is perfect.

I do not mean to offend, just to shed light on the possibilities of Christianity.

BUT, some of the protestant and other later churches could be right, if catholics are not, because they have different beliefs...

So, you would wear tassles on your clothes, never wear wollen and linen clothes together, never eat shellfish, refuse vital blood transfusions and genrally live your life after every single rule given in Deutronomy?


No, thank goodness that I live under the New Testament!

I'd have to say "Reason", but even there we Deists (who believe in "God" as the concrete, unknowable universal creator - and that's all... you can call him Zeus if you want to...) hold Reason to be the defining feature "proving" the existence of "God".

The logic is somewhat circular, but:

The ability to Reason does not appear to be an evolutionary requirement.

Evolution tends to discard the unrequired and favor the required.

We know that life exists/can exist without the capacity for Reason (logical cognition/contemplation), thus Reason is not Required

Yet Reason exists in sophonts like humans and only in sophonts like humans (on Earth).

Therefore, reason was not evolved, but Created - which implies a Creator (nothing more).

Therefore, "God"

I admit there are some difficulties with this equasion, but I find it better than the questions created by insisting on no creator whatsoever.

Your milage may vary. :D
Evolution tends to discard the un benificial and keep the benificial (not nessisarly required)
Reson is deffinatly a benificial traith alowing us to conjecture and make acurate predictions and prepare for thoes predictions (increasing our survivability)

Sorry but there is a big difference between required and benificial

No, thank goodness that I live under the New Testament!
Technicaly the NT does not invalidate some of thoes laws of good or bad just provides salvation

(the NT does make changes but as far as I have been able to tell it does not debunk LEV)

So you really are sinning when you dont do thoes things

Technicaly the NT does not invalidate some of thoes laws of good or bad just provides salvation

(the NT does make changes but as far as I have been able to tell it does not debunk LEV)

So you really are sinning when you dont do thoes things

...Wearing different clothing would not be a sin..

BUT, some of the protestant and other later churches could be right, if catholics are not, because they have different beliefs...

if it were possible for man to come up with a lost truth, yes. but they all have the same material to work from. Without Divine intervention truth is impossible.


As for early protestants. Most of them knew that they could not form Christ's true church and hoped for the day of a restoration. Bu they believed the Catholic to be wrong. Luther for example never meant to start a church, he just wanted to patch what was broken. Calvin said that he did not have authority from God, but would lead people in worship til the authority was restored. The starters of the various protestant faiths were not usually the theologians, but those who liked what they said.

So you have faith in logic, we have faith in scripture (well, logic too, for most of us)

How can you have faith in both scripture and logic, when logically there can't be a kingdom in the sky where good souls go and are watched over by some all powerful entity who judges thier actions on Earth to see if they should even be allowed into his elite sky kingdom. Logically, air isn't a good foundation to build a kingdom upon because of that pesky gravity. I suppose you could say that heaven doesn't apply to the law of gravity because it's in the spirit world, but it can't even logically be proven that we have souls.

So you have faith in logic, we have faith in scripture (well, logic too, for most of us)

In a sense, yes, though "faith" is one of those annoying words which can be used to mean completely different things depending on who's saying it. The way I've heard some theists define it, faith, for them, seems to mean a complete refusal to accept the possibility that the views they hold could be incorrect. Given the proven unreliability of scripture in a significant number of cases, I think that's quite an extreme, and possibly quite dangerous, position to hold.

Speaking for myself, I like to think that I'm open-minded enough to change my views if presented with evidence which invalidates them.

...Wearing different clothing would not be a sin..
By the LEV wearing clothing made of cloth and linen combined (sewn or mixed)
Show me where the NT invalidates LEV

(It changes the rules of slavation but not nessisarily the rules)

if it were possible for man to come up with a lost truth, yes. but they all have the same material to work from. Without Divine intervention truth is impossible.


As for early protestants. Most of them knew that they could not form Christ's true church and hoped for the day of a restoration. Bu they believed the Catholic to be wrong. Luther for example never meant to start a church, he just wanted to patch what was broken. Calvin said that he did not have authority from God, but would lead people in worship til the authority was restored. The starters of the various protestant faiths were not usually the theologians, but those who liked what they said.


Err... Devine intervention then... so?

Faith is merely believing in something you know to be untrue.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

<snip>Sorry but there is a big difference between required and benificial
Then why only Humans? Is Reason only beneficial to creatures with opposable thumbs (but not apes...) or massive brains (but not elephants or cetations)?

I would think it would be a vastly useful/beneficial resource for any creature.

Thus it must have been Created, not evolved, and implies a Creator.

(Creators don't need religions, they just create. Maybe the Universe is a child's plaything waiting to be run over by a Cosmic Vacuum Cleaner during house cleaning...)

Great how they took the jewish torah ... extended on it ... and then go "ok if anyone else does what we did they are heritics"


But the Old Testament was open to extension because they predicted a Messiah with authority would come, and when he did the rules would change. He came and the rules are now eternal.

How can you have faith in both scripture and logic, when logically there can't be a kingdom in the sky where good souls go and are watched over by some all powerful entity who judges thier actions on Earth to see if they should even be allowed into his elite sky kingdom. Logically, air isn't a good foundation to build a kingdom upon because of that pesky gravity. I suppose you could say that heaven doesn't apply to the law of gravity because it's in the spirit world, but it can't even logically be proven that we have souls.

Erm, It's not in the sky of the earth or anything.. Heaven is in a seperate.... realm/dimension/something. God made the rules of gravity, he can defy them. It can't be logically proven that logic exists.

For religion, I don't see enough evidence or reasoning to suggest that what any of the Bibles say are true. The Christian bible, for example, was translated first from Hebrew to Latin, then from Latin to English


But you can read the original texts as they were in Latin, Aramaic, and Greek. In fact, Latin and Greek used to be taught in school (If I remember correctly, for the very purpose of reading the original texts) but you can think our public school system for their removal...well....at least their removal in this school system.

Erm, It's not in the sky of the earth or anything.. Heaven is in a seperate.... realm/dimension/something. God made the rules of gravity, he can defy them. It can't be logically proven that logic exists.

I guess if logic doesn't exist then science doesn't exist. I guess that means this computer is fake.

Then why only Humans? Is Reason only beneficial to creatures with opposable thumbs (but not apes...) or massive brains (but not elephants or cetations)?

I would think it would be a vastly useful/beneficial resource for any creature.

Thus it must have been Created, not evolved, and implies a Creator.

(Creators don't need religions, they just create. Maybe the Universe is a child's plaything waiting to be run over by a Cosmic Vacuum Cleaner during house cleaning...)
It is a vastly usefull tool ones (by evolution) humans only recently aquired ourselfs (if you look at the whole history of life on this planet ... hundreds of millions of years we have only been rational a few hundred thousand)

Now by rational I presume you mean ability to reason ... if so animals DO exhibit ability to reason to a limited extent

We have only recently developed a higher order of "rational" we were the first that makes us unique now to this higher level but it does not mean this tool could not be adapted by others

But the Old Testament was open to extension because they predicted a Messiah with authority would come, and when he did the rules would change. He came and the rules are now eternal.

So, how do you KNOW he was the messiah? Because he said so and his followers duly wrote it down?
The Jews are still waiting for the messiah to arrive...

Faith is merely believing in something you know to be untrue.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

Faith is beleiving in something the rules of this world may prove untrue, or that thee is no proof for.

Many of these I have nothing to say to. They are true.
2: No, the 99.99% failure is people who don't have a good relationship with god, don't understand prayer, etc.
1: Not usually true.
3: Ever heard of the Bible?

But the Old Testament was open to extension because they predicted a Messiah with authority would come, and when he did the rules would change. He came and the rules are now eternal.

If you're referring to Isiaih, consider this scenario:

You are a king ,your country is being invaded by the strongest empire on earth and you know you have no chance against it.
Then comes a prophet and tell you this: " God has given you a sign and that sign is that a virgin will be born in 800 hundred years and she will have a son"

Put yourself in this king's position and see how ridiculous this will sound like. You are worried about being eliminate and someone tells you about what will happen in 800 years. No way Isaiah is talking about Jesus because the purpose of his visit is to inform Ahaz that Judah will not be eliminated.

Matthew 1:23 ""Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us). "

ISAIAH 7:11 " 11: "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven."
12: But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test."
13: And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?
14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."

1) the word "virgin" is translated incorrectly , the proper meaning is “girl” or “maid”
2) No where in the bible Jesus is called Imman'u-el. And it does not mean Jesus or messiah
3) Prophecy is actually fulfilled in ISAIAH 8:3
ISAIAH 8 " 3: And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Ma'her-shal'al-hash-baz;
4: for before the child knows how to cry `My father' or `My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Sama'ria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

The sign is fulfilled and the son is found and Assyria did not take Judah down.

(stolen from http://www.freejesus.net/home/viewtopic.php?p=20933 . But they do know what they're talking about)

I guess if logic doesn't exist then science doesn't exist. I guess that means this computer is fake.

Why without logic is there no science?

But you can read the original texts as they were in Latin, Aramaic, and Greek. In fact, Latin and Greek used to be taught in school (If I remember correctly, for the very purpose of reading the original texts) but you can think our public school system for their removal...well....at least their removal in this school system.
I'm an amateur linguist, and often quotes from the bible are used as example texts for translations. Have you any idea how completely different a passage can be on one language to the next? The bible is full of idioms which make no sense in English or Latin, and so were (very) roughly translated. If the bible was ever divinely inspired, it stopped being so about 1500 years ago. Take this for example:


1AE. And all the earth had one speech and one tongue.
2AE. And it came about that in their wandering from the east, they came to a stretch of flat land in the land of Shinar, and there they made their living-place.
Compared to:

1C. And all the earth had one language and one tongue.
2C. And it came about that in their wandering from the east, they came to a stretch of flat country in the land of Shinar, and there they made their living-place.

It gets sixty million times worse with languages that have no relationship to one another - i.e., Aramaic -> Latin.

But you can read the original texts as they were in Latin, Aramaic, and Greek. In fact, Latin and Greek used to be taught in school (If I remember correctly, for the very purpose of reading the original texts) but you can think our public school system for their removal...well....at least their removal in this school system.

You have a very valid point. I'd actually very much like to read the original scriptures. I'm sure that would be very enlightening, and might even change my mind. But... I'm not sure I'll ever know any of those languages. And I could spend a lifetime learning them, but I'd probably never know them in whole fluency, and I might find out that I still don't believe what's written there. That's not a risk I'm willing to take. ;)

Another thing I forgot to mention is that I also don't agree with what a lot of religions teach. And I personally think it's absurd for me to spend this lifetime following something I fundamentally disagree with so I could potentially get rewarded in an afterlife which may or may not exist.

But there are really only two choices.
Either the Catholic church is correct or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints (Mormons) is correct. According to Biblical logic.

Reasons why:
All the protestant churches came out of the Catholic church, SO, if Catholics are right, then they are wrong, because they broke away. But likewise, If the CAtholics are wrong, then the Protestants are wrong too, having not started out from the truth. They claim unbroken authority from Peter.

The Mormon church claims to be the restored church of Christ. They claim there was an apostacy and that the authority and church of God was lost from the earth, (as seen in the writings of Paul). They claim Christ himself organized it with a prophet and apostles like unto the ancient church.

There have been small splinter groups off this, so the same applies to them as does to protestants.

Christ can only have one church. Because he would not want to confuse people.

Therefore, either there was a continuity of Authority from Christ down to the present day pope. OR the truth and authority was lost after the apostles died and there was a need for a Restoration of Christ's church (as is explained in Acts 2).

A reformation, no matter how profound, cannot restore that which was lost, nor can it fix something that is perfect.

I do not mean to offend, just to shed light on the possibilities of Christianity.




But Catholicism evolved from the original New Testament church, with different practices and doctrines. I, personally, am a member of the New Testament church.

But the Old Testament was open to extension because they predicted a Messiah with authority would come, and when he did the rules would change. He came and the rules are now eternal.
And Islam believes that jesus was only a prophet and therefore mohamad rightly filles in afterwords

Faith is beleiving in something the rules of this world may prove untrue, or that thee is no proof for.

Many of these I have nothing to say to. They are true.
2: No, the 99.99% failure is people who don't have a good relationship with god, don't understand prayer, etc.
1: Not usually true.
3: Ever heard of the Bible?
Are you saying the bible is proof of god? rediculous.

But Catholicism evolved from the original New Testament church, with different practices and doctrines. I, personally, am a member of the New Testament church.
Mormonism is part of a branch of Christianity (some would dispute this label) called Restorationism. It shares it with both Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Why without logic is there no science?

Because science is based on logic.

Are you saying the bible is proof of god? rediculous.

Yes actually, I am

Actually, the first full text of the Qu'ran was from the 9th century. The 6th century predates Muhammad, which would make writing it a little difficult hehe ;)

Mohammed was born in 580 AD and died 632 AD. As he wrote some of the Qu'raan himself, that places the date of creation at the turn of 6th/7th century AD.

Yes actually, I am


to be fare its like saying a night before christmass is proof of santa

Because science is based on logic.

I kinda get what you're saying. But what I said was, you can't prove logic works. Because you'd have to use logic to do it, and you couldn't.... ( I think that's what i said atleast :P)

The Bible is a novel about a carpenter who was wildly charismatic.

Yes actually, I am
# ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY
(1) The Bible is true.
(2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

You have to prove the bible is true before you can use it for proof of god

It can't be logically proven that logic exists.

Actually, Hume covered this. He showed that induction (ie. the idea that it's possible to accurately predict the future by observing what has happened in the past) is only provable by induction (ie. that we only believe induction works because we have previously used what happened in the past to predict the future). This would be a circular argument.

However, we nevertheless have reason to believe induction works, because, if it did not, if I were to lift a pen into the air and let go of it, I would have to be just as justified in believing that it would float up to the ceiling and turn into a bunch of daffodils as I would be in believing that it would fall to the ground.

While it's true that the basic principles of logic are self-fulfilling, the alternative is daffodil-country.

It is a vastly usefull tool ones (by evolution) humans only recently aquired ourselfs (if you look at the whole history of life on this planet ... hundreds of millions of years we have only been rational a few hundred thousand)Which begs the question - why not some other creature that has been around longer?
Now by rational I presume you mean ability to reason ... if so animals DO exhibit ability to reason to a limited extentVery limited, and never beyond the scope of specific tasks like acquiring food or learning a task tought by humans.
We have only recently developed a higher order of "rational" we were the first that makes us unique now to this higher level but it does not mean this tool could not be adapted by othersThus far it has not - despite a much longer evolutionary cycle.

But I'm not realy arguing. Humans MIGHT be able to reason because we contain "body theatans" left by Xenu 25,000,000 years ago.

Of course, that could also be the rantings of a pathological liar who claimed to be a secret agent for the Navy before writing books and starting his church...

but it makes about as much sense as either your or my postulates as to why Reason is a dominant factor in humans only.

I kinda get what you're saying. But what I said was, you can't prove logic works. Because you'd have to use logic to do it, and you couldn't.... ( I think that's what i said atleast :P)
Thats like saying you cant prove we exist because we would have to exist to prove it

:p

Yes actually, I am

Well, in that case I take the Mahabarata to be proof that Hindu deities exist.
Prove me wrong.

Technicaly the NT does not invalidate some of thoes laws of good or bad just provides salvation

(the NT does make changes but as far as I have been able to tell it does not debunk LEV)

So you really are sinning when you dont do thoes things



Colossians 2:13-15 (NIV) 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[b] God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d]



Ephesians 2:11-22 11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit 19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Colossians 2:13-15 (NIV) 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[b] God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d]


So... he took away ALL the written code?

Thats like saying you cant prove we exist because we would have to exist to prove it :p
I think, therefore I am, I think... :rolleyes:

How can you have faith in both scripture and logic, when logically there can't be a kingdom in the sky where good souls go and are watched over by some all powerful entity who judges thier actions on Earth to see if they should even be allowed into his elite sky kingdom. Logically, air isn't a good foundation to build a kingdom upon because of that pesky gravity. I suppose you could say that heaven doesn't apply to the law of gravity because it's in the spirit world, but it can't even logically be proven that we have souls.


Because, there IS NO "Kingdom floating on clouds in the sky". Heaven, I believe, is within another plane of existence.

So... he took away ALL the written code?
Hey COOL!

Adultery HERE I COME!! WooHoo! :p

Hey COOL!

Adultery HERE I COME!! WooHoo! :p

I was thinking more on the lines of unborn homosexual criminals and such...
But adultery sounds nice as well ;)

Drubinia...that...*sigh*....I'm not even going to get started on the fallacies in that list...they should speak for themselves to anyone with an actual knowledge of the bible (Much unlike that person had)

How can belief in God be true when there are so many different religions? Not to mention we're on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in an infinite universe. I'm sure there are other life stustaining planets out there and I bet they have their own religions. Are they any less right? And don't try to tell me that there are no aliens. We take up an incredibly tiny percent of our galaxy, let alone the universe. It's just pretentious of us to think that we're the only ones out there.

Drubinia...that...*sigh*....I'm not even going to get started on the fallacies in that list...they should speak for themselves to anyone with an actual knowledge of the bible (Much unlike that person had)

What was wrong with that? To close to the truth to feel funny to you?
I know I had a good laugh...

If you're referring to Isiaih, consider this scenario:

You are a king ,your country is being invaded by the strongest empire on earth and you know you have no chance against it.
Then comes a prophet and tell you this: " God has given you a sign and that sign is that a virgin will be born in 800 hundred years and she will have a son"

Put yourself in this king's position and see how ridiculous this will sound like. You are worried about being eliminate and someone tells you about what will happen in 800 years. No way Isaiah is talking about Jesus because the purpose of his visit is to inform Ahaz that Judah will not be eliminated.

Matthew 1:23 ""Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us). "

ISAIAH 7:11 " 11: "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven."
12: But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test."
13: And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?
14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."

1) the word "virgin" is translated incorrectly , the proper meaning is “girl” or “maid”
2) No where in the bible Jesus is called Imman'u-el. And it does not mean Jesus or messiah
3) Prophecy is actually fulfilled in ISAIAH 8:3
ISAIAH 8 " 3: And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Ma'her-shal'al-hash-baz;
4: for before the child knows how to cry `My father' or `My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Sama'ria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

The sign is fulfilled and the son is found and Assyria did not take Judah down.

(stolen from http://www.freejesus.net/home/viewtopic.php?p=20933 . But they do know what they're talking about)


Fair enough, I'll need more time to research my response to that.


Edit: Of course, this also raises the question of why the Jews themselves await a Messiah, if this is a misinterpretation. I'm going to bed now, I should be up in about 8 hours to continue this.

Which begs the question - why not some other creature that has been around longer?


Because of phisical and social pressres
Not all animals were in the same phisical envyroment and not all developed certian traits yet

Remember not only is location and pressures a big factor but so is random mutation



Very limited, and never beyond the scope of specific tasks like acquiring food or learning a task tought by humans.
Thus far it has not - despite a much longer evolutionary cycle.

Length of cycle does not mean they developed the same mutations


But I'm not realy arguing. Humans MIGHT be able to reason because we contain "body theatans" left by Xenu 25,000,000 years ago.

Of course, that could also be the rantings of a pathological liar who claimed to be a secret agent for the Navy before writing books and starting his church...

but it makes about as much sense as either your or my postulates as to why Reason is a dominant factor in humans only.
Luck ... combination of pressures and adaptations

How can belief in God be true when there are so many different religions? Not to mention we're on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in an infinite universe. I'm sure there are other life stustaining planets out there and I bet they have their own religions. Are they any less right? And don't try to tell me that there are no aliens. We take up an incredibly tiny percent of our galaxy, let alone the universe. It's just pretentious of us to think that we're the only ones out there.
The problem is, people confuse the Belief in God with their Belief in Religion.

One is at least concieveably rational, the other is not.

Adultery HERE I COME!! WooHoo!

Mark 10:19-22 19You know the commandments: "Do not commit adultery,' "Do not murder,' "Do not steal,' "Do not bear false witness,' "Do not defraud,' "Honor your father and your mother."'[c]

20And he answered and said to Him, "Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth."

21Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me."

22But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.







Galatians 5:16-26 16I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[c] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.






James 2:8-13 8If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself,"[a] you do well; 9but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11For He who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[b] also said, "Do not murder."[c] Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.




Revelation 2:18 These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass: 19"I know your works, love, service, faith,[b] and your patience; and as for your works, the last are more than the first. 20Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow[c] that woman[d] Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce[e] My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.[f] 22Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their[g] deeds. 23I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

(That one didn't outwardly condemn adultery, but it was implied as a wicked act in context.)





Ephesians 5:1-7 1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
3But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5For this you know,[a] that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7Therefore do not be partakers with them.






Nice try hun ;)

What was wrong with that? To close to the truth to feel funny to you?
I know I had a good laugh...


Too far from the truth, rather...

How can belief in God be true when there are so many different religions? Not to mention we're on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in an infinite universe. I'm sure there are other life stustaining planets out there and I bet they have their own religions. Are they any less right? And don't try to tell me that there are no aliens. We take up an incredibly tiny percent of our galaxy, let alone the universe. It's just pretentious of us to think that we're the only ones out there.

FINALLY! Someone who thinks like I do. To think we're the only intellegent life in the universe(s), is ridiculously arrogant.

I don't look to any religion anymore. "God" to me is a great intangible spirit, I believe. I do not belong to an organized religion, although I am Christian. I am not dogmatic in any way. I think most religions consider "God" a higher power, and it's really all the same. Something beyond them. Not a guy with a beard. :rolleyes:

Organized religion is fine, but when it comes down to it, it's all about an intangible higher power/spirit. Call it whatever you want, God, Allah, whatever.

I find many organized religions to be almost more political institutions than anything else, and many hypocrites belonging to those religions. I was brought up Catholic, and ditched that pretty quick.

I also find it odd that people take the bible LITERALLY. :rolleyes:

How can belief in God be true when there are so many different religions? Not to mention we're on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in an infinite universe. I'm sure there are other life stustaining planets out there and I bet they have their own religions. Are they any less right? And don't try to tell me that there are no aliens. We take up an incredibly tiny percent of our galaxy, let alone the universe. It's just pretentious of us to think that we're the only ones out there.


A. It's probable, but not certain B. Perhaps they have not sinned? Perhaps they need no redemption? Perhaps the lifeforms on those planet cannot compare to humans? C. God will have a plan of salvation for them if they have sinned. Perhaps Jesus died for them too? Perhaps we'll never know. E. There are many different religions for the same reason there are many different incorrect assertions but only one true (true in an absolute sense that is, not by human opinion) statement when dealing with the answer to a question.

<snip>Nice try hun ;)
Except all of those are contradicted by the previous post that says keeping the law is immaterial. So which is it?

I don't look to any religion anymore. "God" to me is a great intangible spirit, I believe. I do not belong to an organized religion, although I am Christian. I am not dogmatic in any way. I think most religions consider "God" a higher power, and it's really all the same. Something beyond them. Not a guy with a beard.


I didn't know it mentioned God in the bible as a man with a beard :rolleyes:

Except all of those are contradicted by the previous post that says keeping the law is immaterial. So which is it?



The OLD law (The law of Moses as some would refer to it) was nailed to the cross and the law of Christ replaced it. Anyone who has actually read the Bible in its entirety would know that. I wish they gave a test on here on biblical facts before letting people into these debates :mad:

<snip>


I really fail to see the logic in this argumentation... You say, Christianity is the one true religion. When asked why, you point to the bible. When asked why the bible is true, your answer is because God told people to write it. When asked how you know that, you say because the bible says so.

You do realise that we can all accept JRR Tolkien as god, and with the same argumentation believe in hobbits?

Because science is based on logic.
Really? I thought it was trial and error.

I also find it odd that people take the bible LITERALLY. :rolleyes:
There is LITTERALY no ending to this sketch ... LITTERALY

Really? I thought it was trial and error.

No, that's research. Once research found something, science is used to verify the discovery and evaluate it.

Really? I thought it was trial and error.
But the whole hypothesis thing is really logical inferance ... and THEN trial and error

New to the internet, are we? At least you're new to this site.
How do feel about having a nazi for a pope?This is trolling.
Because the poor little f*cker doen't know why he believes. And he certainly doesn't articulate or reason particularly well. He needs some life experience or does he want to spend the rest of his life with a bad haircut and a suit knocking on doors and listening to the god channelThis is flaming.

IN-GER-LAND, have a read through the rules thread linked in my signature. Pay particular attention to the bits on trolling and flaming. My next warning for this behavior will not be this polite.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

The OLD law (The law of Moses as some would refer to it) was nailed to the cross and the law of Christ replaced it. Anyone who has actually read the Bible in its entirety would know that. I wish they gave a test on here on biblical facts before letting people into these debates :mad:
But your cites are discussions of applications of the "Old Law" (which wasn't "old" at the time). :confused:

How about "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8)

Keeping the Law, in any of the respects it could be described, it a "Work".

Frankly, I'm all for leaving the final resolution of my non-corporeal essence up to God and not sweating whether or not I live up to anybody's religion.

<snip>
there are many different incorrect assertions but only one true (true in an absolute sense that is, not by human opinion) statement when dealing with the answer to a question.

That is a very, VERY bold statement. It is my opinion that many (not necessarily all) problems can have more than one correct solution...

I really fail to see the logic in this argumentation... You say, Christianity is the one true religion. When asked why, you point to the bible. When asked why the bible is true, your answer is because God told people to write it. When asked how you know that, you say because the bible says so.

You do realise that we can all accept JRR Tolkien as god, and with the same argumentation believe in hobbits?



I really need to know what you are referring to, as I have a bajillion posts on this subject. Also, Tolkien, unlike the Bible, is fiction and can be proven to be fiction as we were there to observe the "god" of Middle Earth.

Mohammed was born in 580 AD and died 632 AD. As he wrote some of the Qu'raan himself, that places the date of creation at the turn of 6th/7th century AD.
Correction: Mohammed didn't write some of the Qu'raan. Mohammed never learned to read or write. He had a scribe following him and writing down what Mohammed told him to write.

So, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, church of Lemon Meringue....
I'm not asking if god exists or not. Let's start this considering he/she/it does or they do. But what makes you so sure that your path is the right one, that you feel you are in a position to converse others?

A combination of the teachings of the Bible, personal experience, philosophy, archeological data, scientific findings and fulfilled prophecy.

That is a very, VERY bold statement. It is my opinion that many (not necessarily all) problems can have more than one correct solution...


True, the answer can have multiple aspects, yet it is one answer. The solution can be more than one, yet you put all the correct solutions into one answer. If a = 0 and a = 2 then you could say "A = 0 and 2". Perhaps I should elucidated what I was saying, as even I can now see the confusing factor in retrospect :(

I really need to know what you are referring to, as I have a bajillion posts on this subject. Also, Tolkien, unlike the Bible, is fiction and can be proven to be fiction as we were there to observe the "god" of Middle Earth.

All your argumentation, really. And that of most defenders of the literal truth of the bible.

True, the bible can not be proven to be fiction. I cannot be proven to be the word of god, either.
A number of books claim to be written by prophets and gods, but that doesn't mean it's true.

I'm not saying that it doesn't contain truths, I'm saying it isn't possible to prove it either way.

If I decided that I know that Tolkien was a god, that his spirit has risen from his grave and became Beren to join his wife Luthien in Middle-Earth, a parallel dimension, you couldn't prove me wrong.

How about "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8)



True, but Christ also condemns vice and omission of his commands in one's life. Christ's blood offers redemption of sins, however, if we do not follow the commandments of Christ and the apostles then we relinquish that redemption.

If I decided that I know that Tolkien was a god, that his spirit has risen from his grave and became Beren to join his wife Luthien in Middle-Earth, a parallel dimension, you couldn't prove me wrong.


Perhaps, but the Bible does have credibility to back up its claims :D


I really am going to bed this time :mad:

Correction: Mohammed didn't write some of the Qu'raan. Mohammed never learned to read or write. He had a scribe following him and writing down what Mohammed told him to write.

Really? A successful, rich merchant that cannot read nor write?
Ok, I'll take your word for it. The important part here was that some of the Qu'raan at least was written down during Mohammed's lifetime, unlike the new testament, which was written exclusively long after Jesus' death.

A combination of the teachings of the Bible, personal experience, philosophy, archeological data, scientific findings and fulfilled prophecy.
You know my list of reasons to not believe in god is almost the exact same thing lol

True, but Christ also condemns vice and omission of his commands in one's life. Christ's blood offers redemption of sins, however, if we do not follow the commandments of Christ and the apostles then we relinquish that redemption.
Ah, but Christ's definition of Vice stems from the Old Law - of which he was a Teacher. So the Old Law must still be in effect. Right? Or do we get to pick and choose?

Perhaps, but the Bible does have credibility to back up its claims :D


I really am going to bed this time :mad:

WHAT credibility?
Are you saying I'm lying in my experience of Tolkien as a god? ;)

Really? A successful, rich merchant that cannot read nor write?
Ok, I'll take your word for it. The important part here was that some of the Qu'raan at least was written down during Mohammed's lifetime, unlike the new testament, which was written exclusively long after Jesus' death.
Correct. I had discussion with many muslim and they all say he was illiterate. Doesn't change your other points, on which I agree.

I beleive my path to be A right path not some mythical and non-existant THE right path. I occasionaly debate religion in an attempt to open peoples eyesto the fact that their way while the correct way for them (I presume your way to be the right way for you, if it's not why the hell haven't you gone and found another way?) is not the one and only right way.

I beleive my path to be A right path not some mythical and non-existant THE right path. I occasionaly debate religion in an attempt to open peoples eyesto the fact that their way while the correct way for them (I presume your way to be the right way for you, if it's not why the hell haven't you gone and found another way?) is not the one and only right way.

Well, So what you're saying is, "Follow whatever you want, it may be right for other people, but if it's not right for you you'r egoing to hell, it only works for some people"?

Well, So what you're saying is, "Follow whatever you want, it may be right for other people, but if it's not right for you you'r egoing to hell, it only works for some people"?

If I am parsing what you ask correctly what I am saying is that if the way you are following is not right for you then you are most likely haveing one hell of a miserable life and probably will not enjoy your afterlife very much either (one mans heaven being another mans hell and all that . . .)

Nobody left to argue with? Pity... and I was so proud on my Tolkien-Bible arguement. ;)

Nobody left to argue with? Pity... and I was so proud on my Tolkien-Bible arguement. ;)
That's because it's bunk. The only REAL comparison is Hubbard-Bible.... :eek:

Or maybe Robert Anton Wilson-Bible (fnord) (http://www.rawilson.com/illuminatus.html) :D

That's because it's bunk. The only REAL comparison is Hubbard-Bible.... :eek:

Or maybe Robert Anton Wilson-Bible (fnord) (http://www.rawilson.com/illuminatus.html) :D

Don't know either of them...

Don't know either of them...
:eek: :confused:

L Ron Hubbard... The Pathological Liar of Bad SF and worse Religion (Dianetics/Scientology) ?!?

Robert Anton Wilson, co-author of the difinitive book(s) of the Illumanati.

Where have you been... Germany? :p :D

:eek: :confused:

L Ron Hubbard... The Pathological Liar of Bad SF and worse Religion (Dianetics/Scientology) ?!?

Robert Anton Wilson, co-author of the difinitive book(s) of the Illumanati.

Where have you been... Germany? :p :D

Middle Earth. The enlightened father of all fantasy realms blessed me with a vision of dwarves and elves in harmony.
And instructed me not to pay too much attention to Americans who claim they found "the truth about life, the univers and everything" once again. Polite interest over a cup of tea is sufficient

I didn't know it mentioned God in the bible as a man with a beard :rolleyes:

Wellll...

Genesis states that God created man in his own image. In their natural state, men have beards (razors being an attempt to impose human will on the natural scheme of things).

Jesus was the most god-like person ever to exist. Jesus had a beard.

Therefore, God must have a beard! :p

:eek: :confused:

L Ron Hubbard... The Pathological Liar of Bad SF and worse Religion (Dianetics/Scientology) ?!?

Robert Anton Wilson, co-author of the difinitive book(s) of the Illumanati.

Where have you been... Germany? :p :D

I would have thought Bavaria . . .

I would have thought Bavaria . . .

Dublin, to be precise...

Dublin, to be precise...
My bad. I thought you were from Germany. Must be thinking about another NSer. :)

My religion has the best hymns of any religion, therefore, it is the one and only absolute truth.

Mormonism is part of a branch of Christianity called Restorationism. It shares it with both Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.


Actually, Mormonism is the only church that falls into the Restorationism Christianity. It claims it IS the church of the New Testament restored upon the earth. It claims Divine authorship and direct authority from God.

The other two do not. They are in fact Protestant. Especially Seventh day Adventists.

JWs are a group bent on the scientific study of the Bible who claim no divine authority. No restoration, simply correctness due to human intelligence and interpretation. They have no infrastructure like that of Christ's church.

The Authority is the key to determining the truth. God gives that authority to but one group. Simply spouting biblical ideas and calling them truth is not enough. One must be "Called of God as was Aaron" and Aaron as we know was ordained by one who had authority (namely Moses) byt the laying on of hands.

If Catholocism is correct and they have that direct authority, then everyone else is wrong. BUT if they didn't have the authority, due to a break in the line of authority, then no church stemming from them could have obtained it.
Thus the need for a restoration. God Himself and His Son had to come down to earth and start Christ's church the way it was in the New Testament.

My religion has the best hymns of any religion, therefore, it is the one and only absolute truth.
Is that like "...lalala, I can't hear you!"

;)

So, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, church of Lemon Meringue....
I'm not asking if god exists or not. Let's start this considering he/she/it does or they do. But what makes you so sure that your path is the right one, that you feel you are in a position to converse others?

I do not try to convert anyone else to my path, nor do I feel it is necessarily the correct path for anyone else. I only feel that my path is the right one for me. To borrow what is supposed to be a Christian concept, my path is a narrow one leading to a strait gate - because it is a path made just for one. I refuse to follow a path that a third of the world is walking, which in my estimation is most assuredly a path of destruction.

My bad. I thought you were from Germany. Must be thinking about another NSer. :)

I'm originally from Germany, but living in Dublin now...

You know my list of reasons to not believe in god is almost the exact same thing lol

Not too surprising my friend. Though, I'm guessing fulfilled prophecy probably isn't on the list. :p ;)

True, but Christ also condemns vice and omission of his commands in one's life. Christ's blood offers redemption of sins, however, if we do not follow the commandments of Christ and the apostles then we relinquish that redemption.

It isn't so much an issue of relinquishing that redemption as much as it is the issue of not having received it. Certainly it was given/offered in that Christ died once for all, pardoning all. The problem is that some refuse that pardon and their refusal is evidenced by their fruits or lack there of.

Consider the following: "Works won't save you, but you won't be saved without them." Roual Dederin Th.D. You can't earn your way to Heaven no matter how many good things you do or how many bad things you don't do, it is and always will be the "gift of God". The works are merely evidence of having accepted that gift and or its out working in our lives.

Ah, but Christ's definition of Vice stems from the Old Law - of which he was a Teacher. So the Old Law must still be in effect. Right? Or do we get to pick and choose?

Of course, the Old Law (Ten Commandments which can be broken down into Love God and Love your fellow man) are still in effect. Christ said that not one jot or tittle would pass from them, but it was never the law that saved someone to begin with. Keeping the law is a natural part of one's relationship with God that became unnatural with the emergence of sin. Accepting Christ's gifts of substutionary death, substitutionary life and power to change via the indwelling of the Spirit has the capacity to restore one's natural law keeping relationship with God.

That's a question I have asked for most of my life, I never got a satisfactory answer so far.

I was raised Christian (Catholic, to be precise), but I have been encouraged to think critically all my life, both from my parents and from school (Catholic school run by a convent). I was taught to respect other religions and to respect people without religion, to answer them with my own opinion about god if asked and only if asked, but never to pretend what I believe in would be the absolute truth, never to judge them in any way, never to feel superior to them in any way or to pity them.

I've been reading all those threads about Christianity those past few days and I saw some posts that more than shocked me. There were "Christians" telling agnostigs smuggly that they felt pity for them because they would certainly go to hell, there were "Christians" who angryly had a go at others telling them that they can't recognise the truth because their hearts are closed to it, there were "Christians" all over the place trying aggressively to convince everybody who was not of their opinion that they had to repent their sins, there were even "Christians" judging other Christians for their lifestyle and trying to exclude them because they were gay.
I also realised that a fair number of atheists were abusing Christianity and all other faiths, but then no atheist ever claimed to follow Jesus and love all of mankind. It doesn't make this kind of behaviour any better, it just makes them less hyporict.

So, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, church of Lemon Meringue....
I'm not asking if god exists or not. Let's start this considering he/she/it does or they do. But what makes you so sure that your path is the right one, that you feel you are in a position to converse others?

Because you can find mohammed's body, you can find other religious figures remains, all except for Jesus of Nazerath.

It isn't so much an issue of relinquishing that redemption as much as it is the issue of not having received it. Certainly it was given/offered in that Christ died once for all, pardoning all. The problem is that some refuse that pardon and their refusal is evidenced by their fruits or lack there of.

Consider the following: "Works won't save you, but you won't be saved without them." Roual Dederin Th.D. You can't earn your way to Heaven no matter how many good things you do or how many bad things you don't do, it is and always will be the "gift of God". The works are merely evidence of having accepted that gift and or its out working in our lives.
If all Christ's death is is an offer, then he died in vain.

See, there are some people for whom the whole "pardoning" thing is irrelevant. There was no crime, so no need for pardoning. Eve's bold and brave act gave humanity its life, here on this planet. Life is a good thing, not a sin.

Because you can find mohammed's body, you can find other religious figures remains, all except for Jesus of Nazerath.

How would you recognise his body amongst the other crucified Jews ?
And who says it did not just decompose as with most normal men ;)

Actually, Mormonism is the only church that falls into the Restorationism Christianity. It claims it IS the church of the New Testament restored upon the earth. It claims Divine authorship and direct authority from God.

The other two do not. They are in fact Protestant. Especially Seventh day Adventists.

JWs are a group bent on the scientific study of the Bible who claim no divine authority. No restoration, simply correctness due to human intelligence and interpretation. They have no infrastructure like that of Christ's church.

The Authority is the key to determining the truth. God gives that authority to but one group. Simply spouting biblical ideas and calling them truth is not enough. One must be "Called of God as was Aaron" and Aaron as we know was ordained by one who had authority (namely Moses) byt the laying on of hands.

If Catholocism is correct and they have that direct authority, then everyone else is wrong. BUT if they didn't have the authority, due to a break in the line of authority, then no church stemming from them could have obtained it.
Thus the need for a restoration. God Himself and His Son had to come down to earth and start Christ's church the way it was in the New Testament.

As an Adventist, I'd like to say thank you for clarifing that. I still haven't figured out completely why people seem to think we are so related to JW's and Mormon's.

As for the issue of "Calling's" aren't all Christian's (true Christian's) part of the Priest Hood of the Believers? I don't see a laying on of hands in ACTS 10.

If all Christ's death is is an offer, then he died in vain.

See, there are some people for whom the whole "pardoning" thing is irrelevant. There was no crime, so no need for pardoning. Eve's bold and brave act gave humanity its life, here on this planet. Life is a good thing, not a sin.


Not from a Biblical perspective. From Biblical perspective, "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and, "the wages of sin is death." Eve and Adam's act in chosing to love themselves or each other more than God brought death into this world. Only Christ's substitutionary death can save us from eternal death.

Of course, the Old Law (Ten Commandments which can be broken down into Love God and Love your fellow man) are still in effect. Christ said that not one jot or tittle would pass from them, but it was never the law that saved someone to begin with. Keeping the law is a natural part of one's relationship with God that became unnatural with the emergence of sin. Accepting Christ's gifts of substutionary death, substitutionary life and power to change via the indwelling of the Spirit has the capacity to restore one's natural law keeping relationship with God.
Which brings us back to Colossians 2:13-15 (NIV) 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[b] God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d]

Look, I'm not trying to argue you (or anyone else) out of your Faith in your Religion. Untill your (any) Religion starts being used as an excuse for killing, I really don't care what it teaches.

Look at it this way:

If Deism is "right" then everybody "wins" because the unfathomable will occur after death/end of time.
Agnosticisim goes here...
If Atheisim is "right" then winning is immaterial, and I'm OK with that too.

If any particular Religion is "right" then 99.99% of Humanity is going to some version of Hell. How awfully Nice.

I think my odds are better where I am. My God is bigger than any Human Religion.

Which brings us back to



That is an interesting translation of that passage, but other translations of that passage, particularly when taken in conjunction with Chirst's teaching that nothing would pass from the law as well as clear teaching from Paul, James, Peter and John, make it clear that what was nailed to the Cross was the penalty/requirements for the death of the lawbreaker.

The NIV is a very good translation, but even it can be misconstured.

As for the rest of your comments relating to an all road lead to Rome perspective on religion, I can't prove that you are wrong, but on the basis of scripture I do know that the road to life is a narrow one and though provision has been made for all, there are few that find it, at least that is what Christ Himself said.

It's all detailled out in the case of I'm Right vs. You're Wrong

I should also say, I don't believe my religion has a complete knowledge of all or absolute truth, to say that would be to deny the very infinity of God. I do believe that the Bible will one day be shown, by God Himself, to be irrefutably true, but as I am fallible, I am willing to asknowledge that my understanding of scripture is far from complete.

<snip>
As for the rest of your comments relating to an all road lead to Rome perspective on religion, I can't prove that you are wrong, but on the basis of scripture I do know that the road to life is a narrow one and though provision has been made for all, there are few that find it, at least that is what Christ Himself said.Well, I don't actually think "all Roads lead to Rome" because a good many of those "Roads" lead people to do astoundingly evil things. I just refuse to take the hubristic position that so many creators of Religions have that I know the "mind" of an infinite being and can somehow create an exclusive system of getting Me but not Thee higher on the Godly Pecking Order. For the same reason, I will not take the word of ANY "Religion" seriously, because they ALL claim some sort of mutally-exclusive direct-connection with an infinite being.

(Except Scientology... there they claim a direct relationship with Clams and Space Criminals... :p )

As for the issue of "Calling's" aren't all Christian's (true Christian's) part of the Priest Hood of the Believers? I don't see a laying on of hands in ACTS 10.

You must be a believer before you get the priesthood, yes. But the priesthood is authority from God, not just the right to read His word.

Heb 5:4 "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

To see how Aaron was called you have to go to the Old Testament. He was called by the Prophet Moses and the authority was given him by Moses placing his hands on Aaron's head.

Just like Christ ordained his Apostles by hand. And afterward they called replacement apostles by the laying on of hands.

bump

Because you can find mohammed's body, you can find other religious figures remains, all except for Jesus of Nazerath.

I'm sure if you knew where to look, you would find it. But nobody's looking for it, as far as I know.

So, a quick summary of the more fundamental Christian statements on this thread so far:

You say your religion is the only truth.
When asked why, you point out that the bible says so.
When asked why the bible would be correct, you say because god says so.
When asked where god says so, you point to the bible again.

I don't ask you to prove right what you believe for yourselves. But the moment you start telling me it's a universal truth, you will have to prove it. And in that chain of thought you've given so far, A proves B because B proves A. That simply doesn't work for universal and exclusive truths.

So, a quick summary of the more fundamental Christian statements on this thread so far:

You say your religion is the only truth.
When asked why, you point out that the bible says so.
When asked why the bible would be correct, you say because god says so.
When asked where god says so, you point to the bible again.

I don't ask you to prove right what you believe for yourselves. But the moment you start telling me it's a universal truth, you will have to prove it. And in that chain of thought you've given so far, A proves B because B proves A. That simply doesn't work for universal and exclusive truths.
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed. I really would like to know what criterion people use to determine that their religion is the Right Religion, but so far nobody has shared such information. The only answers I've heard are, "My religion feels good to me, so I believe it," "I was raised to it, so I believe it," and "the Bible says the Bible is true, so I believe it."

I don't get how anybody can be satisfied with such "reasoning" (and I use the term generously). I would think that those who believe in a Creator would be somewhat interested in ensuring that their beliefs on the subject are correct and conform to reality, but I guess not...?

So, a quick summary of the more fundamental Christian statements on this thread so far:

You say your religion is the only truth.
When asked why, you point out that the bible says so.
When asked why the bible would be correct, you say because god says so.
When asked where god says so, you point to the bible again.

I don't ask you to prove right what you believe for yourselves. But the moment you start telling me it's a universal truth, you will have to prove it. And in that chain of thought you've given so far, A proves B because B proves A. That simply doesn't work for universal and exclusive truths.

You make a very good point, but let a Christian give you a bit more insight into why we find ourselves stuck in this loop:

Suppose I live in the middle of a huge Island and have never seen the sea. Suppose further that this therefore means that I have never tasted salt (I realise this is an oversimplification, but bear with me). Now explain to me how salt tastes. You can't, a person cannot really explain the taste of salt adequitely.

In a very similar way, it is difficult for a Christian, or any theist, to explain to an atheist or agnostic the results of their own experiences. For us, they are so real that they are all the proof we need. However, like the taste of salt, this is hard to put into words. We are therefore forced to fall back on that great big vault of wisdom, the Bible. Unfortunately, the Bible, as you pointed out, doesn't really proove things for atheists and agnostics because they dont believe in the fundamental premise which makes the whole book valid. Ultimately, the truth is inside every one of us, and however much others can help, we have to find it for ourselves.

Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed. I really would like to know what criterion people use to determine that their religion is the Right Religion, but so far nobody has shared such information. The only answers I've heard are, "My religion feels good to me, so I believe it," "I was raised to it, so I believe it," and "the Bible says the Bible is true, so I believe it."

I don't get how anybody can be satisfied with such "reasoning" (and I use the term generously). I would think that those who believe in a Creator would be somewhat interested in ensuring that their beliefs on the subject are correct and conform to reality, but I guess not...?
Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever get the explanation you hope for. In the end it all comes down to whether you do believe in say, the existance of god, or not. If you do, well then, it all makes sense, things are the way they are, because they were meant to be that way. There's no point in questioning your religion if you really believe in it (I know, quite redundant..). That's the way they were 'designed' to be, religions make sense if you accept to believe certain 'given's.
If however you reject the idea of god, or a certain religion, it is safe to assume that you simply can't understand how one could be so 'blind' as to simple believe what they're told.
I'm not sure if any of this makes sense,but that's the way I see it.
There's no point in arguing, or trying to 'convince' others of your beliefs, the two positions are just too fundamentally different.
My 2c. :)

Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed. I really would like to know what criterion people use to determine that their religion is the Right Religion, but so far nobody has shared such information. The only answers I've heard are, "My religion feels good to me, so I believe it," "I was raised to it, so I believe it," and "the Bible says the Bible is true, so I believe it."

I don't get how anybody can be satisfied with such "reasoning" (and I use the term generously). I would think that those who believe in a Creator would be somewhat interested in ensuring that their beliefs on the subject are correct and conform to reality, but I guess not...?

Now, I'm not questioning personal faith here, that would be extremely arrogant of me. After all, I do believe that god exists, and I don't hold it impossible that he created the univers and might be still sometimes meddling with it. My idea of god is basically Christian, as well, although I had a good look at many other religions and their approach.
It's my belief that everybody was created different, so everybody has to find their own way and believe what helps them along. But it's nobody's place to say that one religion holds the one and only truth.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever get the explanation you hope for. In the end it all comes down to whether you do believe in say, the existance of god, or not. If you do, well then, it all makes sense, things are the way they are, because they were meant to be that way. There's no point in questioning your religion if you really believe in it (I know, quite redundant..). That's the way they were 'designed' to be, religions make sense if you accept to believe certain 'given's.
If however you reject the idea of god, or a certain religion, it is safe to assume that you simply can't understand how one could be so 'blind' as to simple believe what they're told.
I'm not sure if any of this makes sense,but that's the way I see it.
There's no point in arguing, or trying to 'convince' others of your beliefs, the two positions are just too fundamentally different.
My 2c. :)
It's one thing to say, "I just believe there is a God, I can't say why." That's something that's unprovable in either direction, and choosing to believe one way or another is a personal thing. But, having made that choice, how can somebody not be concerned with how they are choosing to behave towards God? If you have chosen to believe God exists, and if (like most believers) you choose to believe that God is in some way interested in what you are up to, then you must have some system for deciding what you believe God wants you to do and not do.

I'm not interested in trying to make people believe as I do. Not only would that be impossible, by definition of my beliefs, but it also is something that simply doesn't interest me. What I am doing is trying to understand other peoples' beliefs...perhaps I give others too much credit, but I believe that the majority of humans are not insane or stupid, and this includes those who believe in God. (I know, I know, my Official Secularist Membership is now in danger for having said that.) If believers really do believe that God exists and that He/She/It has some kind of interaction with humans, then they must have a system for determining what sort of interaction it might be. That's where my questions come in. How do they select one interpretation? How do they exclude all other interpretations?

It's one thing to say, "I just believe there is a God, I can't say why." That's something that's unprovable in either direction, and choosing to believe one way or another is a personal thing. But, having made that choice, how can somebody not be concerned with how they are choosing to behave towards God? If you have chosen to believe God exists, and if (like most believers) you choose to believe that God is in some way interested in what you are up to, then you must have some system for deciding what you believe God wants you to do and not do.

I'm not interested in trying to make people believe as I do. Not only would that be impossible, by definition of my beliefs, but it also is something that simply doesn't interest me. What I am doing is trying to understand other peoples' beliefs...perhaps I give others too much credit, but I believe that the majority of humans are not insane or stupid, and this includes those who believe in God. (I know, I know, my Official Secularist Membership is now in danger for having said that.) If believers really do believe that God exists and that He/She/It has some kind of interaction with humans, then they must have a system for determining what sort of interaction it might be. That's where my questions come in. How do they select one interpretation? How do they exclude all other interpretations?

I can answer that for myself only.
I didn't really choose one of the religions on offer, I rather had a good look at them all and found one I could agree with to the most extend. That's why I still call myself Christian. But I found that other interpretations of god made a lot of sense as well, and offered interesting spiritual answers. So I intergrated them into my believe.

From a theosophical point of view, I find the Hindu idea of the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva working together for balance of creating, preserving and destroying very intriguing.
My idea of heaven is most closely resembled by the Buddhist Nirvana, I hope to completely cease to exist once I'm dead, but I fear I might have to go through the hell of another existence.
I take the Moslem point of view that Jesus was a prophet rather than an incarnation of god. That his teachings are the word of god, that they are relevant and that one should follow them, but that there was little divine about the teacher.
From Christianity, I take the teaching that you should strive to love god and the rest of humanity as you love yourself (which includes loving yourself, the hardest bit for me)

It took me years to reach all those conclusions, some of them were taken by my mind, some by my heart, some by my conscience.
That's about the easiest answer I can give you

;)

I play poker with God on Fridays and he's told me that that he doesn't care what you believe so long as you live a good life and try not to be an asshole to other people.

I play poker with God on Fridays and he's told me that that he doesn't care what you believe so long as you live a good life and try not to be an asshole to other people.

I bet he cheats, though ;)

It's one thing to say, "I just believe there is a God, I can't say why." That's something that's unprovable in either direction, and choosing to believe one way or another is a personal thing. But, having made that choice, how can somebody not be concerned with how they are choosing to behave towards God? If you have chosen to believe God exists, and if (like most believers) you choose to believe that God is in some way interested in what you are up to, then you must have some system for deciding what you believe God wants you to do and not do.

I'm not interested in trying to make people believe as I do. Not only would that be impossible, by definition of my beliefs, but it also is something that simply doesn't interest me. What I am doing is trying to understand other peoples' beliefs...perhaps I give others too much credit, but I believe that the majority of humans are not insane or stupid, and this includes those who believe in God. (I know, I know, my Official Secularist Membership is now in danger for having said that.) If believers really do believe that God exists and that He/She/It has some kind of interaction with humans, then they must have a system for determining what sort of interaction it might be. That's where my questions come in. How do they select one interpretation? How do they exclude all other interpretations?
Well said.

That's what the mythology is for; to define, on an individual basis, through interpretation and meaningfulness, what the boundaries of that relationship with god will be. It's an artform, and like in art, there is no one "right" portrait or still life or sculpture, and the same message can be gotten from each.

Gaia
mother of all
foundation of all
the oldest one

I shall sing to Earth

She feeds everything
that is in the world.

Whoever you are
whether your live upon her sacred ground
of whether you live along the paths of the sea
you that fly

it is she
who nourishes you
from her treasure-store

Queen of Earth
through you

beautiful children
beautiful harvests
come

The giving of life
and the taking of life

both are yours

Happy is the man you honour
the one who has this
has everything

His fields thicken with ripe corn
his cattle grow heavy in the pastures
his house brims over with good things

These are the men who are masters of their city

Their sons delight
in the ecastsy of youth

Their daughters play
they dance among the flowers
skipping in and out

they dance over the grasses
over soft flowers

Holy goddess, you
honoured them
ever-flowing spirit

Farewell
mother of the gods
bride of Heaven
sparkling with stars

For my song, life
allow me
loved of the heart

Now and in my other songs
I shall remember you

~Trs. Jules Cashford, 1988

I can answer that for myself only.
I didn't really choose one of the religions on offer, I rather had a good look at them all and found one I could agree with to the most extend. That's why I still call myself Christian. But I found that other interpretations of god made a lot of sense as well, and offered interesting spiritual answers. So I intergrated them into my believe.

From a theosophical point of view, I find the Hindu idea of the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva working together for balance of creating, preserving and destroying very intriguing.
My idea of heaven is most closely resembled by the Buddhist Nirvana, I hope to completely cease to exist once I'm dead, but I fear I might have to go through the hell of another existence.
I take the Moslem point of view that Jesus was a prophet rather than an incarnation of god. That his teachings are the word of god, that they are relevant and that one should follow them, but that there was little divine about the teacher.
From Christianity, I take the teaching that you should strive to love god and the rest of humanity as you love yourself (which includes loving yourself, the hardest bit for me)

It took me years to reach all those conclusions, some of them were taken by my mind, some by my heart, some by my conscience.
That's about the easiest answer I can give you

;)
Well, see, but you are no help! You aren't telling other religions they are WRONG, or telling people that only you have it right. You're being reasonable, dag nabbit...how the hell will that help anybody?!





:P

I play poker with God on Fridays and he's told me that that he doesn't care what you believe so long as you live a good life and try not to be an asshole to other people.
God told you that?! Why that dirty little...at our Thursday blackjack games, He told me that He will smite anybody who believes it's wrong to hit on a 17!